Fireworks activist acquitted

Wow – Jay just got the triple whammy in one succcinct post – sanctimony, arrogance and hyperbole – superb work!

Fireworks are for the underdeveloped. I’m not saying that i’m mentally better than anyone. What i do know is that it doesn’t seem fair to have tormented pets cowering and running off to homelessness because of those who like to waste money on poluting the environement with ash and smoke, just because they feel it is their right to watch pretty lights in the sky.

I grew out of that shit when i was 8 years old. Some people need lives.

As much as I love a good bonfire bashing, I’m afraid to say the law was broken.

The jury or whatever have obviously weighed up all of the proofs, and allowed the fact that he was doing this to expose an illegal trader to shine through as sufficient justification for his actions.

In my own beliefs though, that he wasn’t innocent, he was guilty with no punishment.

I am not endorsing bonfires comments, nor do I have any idea what this has to do with driving.

Ok, I’m getting a bit passionate here. I am going to step back and agree to disagree. (except with Bonfire, but he would die of shock otherwise).

(IMHO) Life isn’t black and white Bonfire and for this reason, neither can the law be. We have a system to check out the shades of grey in every situation and this seems to be what has happened.

And what’s with the comment about a lack of evidence that speeding kills? Are you serious or just trying to back up some kind of point?

Oh, and section 77 makes it illegal for him to possess the items out of the licensed period of time as well. (as long as he didn’t have a license to have them outside the licensed period)

Jury found him innocent. Therefore, innocent.

That, my friends, IS the law.

LG, Thumper and Big Al, sorry to spoil the bonfire bashing, but I quote;

ACT (as in Canberra) Dangerous Substances ACT (as in Law) 2004 Section 76 para 1, 2 and 3.

In short form, the exact place where he broke the law, is contained right there because the supplier was not licenced at that time to sell the fireworks to the recipient, and the recipient was not licenced to receive fireworks at that time, and the recipient was reckless about the sellers authority to sell him fireworks.

The onus of proof is in the fact of sale, and the prerecorded intent to purchase the fireworks illegally.

So quit it about him breaking the law, because he did. Whilst I don’t condone the sale of the fireworks, the law requires a rewrite because it only took me 10 minutes (there was a delay as the .pdf file loaded) to work that one out, and I can’t fathom how they managed to overlook that little baby.

Perhaps I should study law…

he plead not guilty due to using the ‘higher cause’ excuse.

he admits buying the fireworks. it was what he set out to do.

absolutely no responsibility taken for his own actions at all. a disgrace.

he demonstrated intent, he admitted carrying out an offence.

you can tap dance around your moral crusader agenda all you like, its an abuse of the legal system and typical of the way the act legal system operates.

He pled not guilty to the offence. I know Bonfire, I WAS SITTING RIGHT FUCKING BEHIND HIM AT THE TIME!! Also, you don’t have a trial unless you say you are not guilty.

he admitted purchansing the fireworks.

he was photographed doing same.

teh case was dismissed, but the fact he admits comitting an offence remains.

his argument is that he did it for a higher purpose, sort of like those peopel who blow up abortion clinics.

Methinks its time to switch on the RiotACT crap-o-meter – especially when we see stuff like this rancid morsel of bulldust from Bonfire – “the fact is he committed an offence” – Sorry bucko, but that’s the whole point of the story – he didn’t commit an offence.

The prosecution alleged that he committed and offence, he was charged with an offence and in due course the court found that he didn’t commit the offence. I guess that’s why we have a legal system – to protect people like this guy from idiot bureaucrats and wannabe bush lawyers.

A little attention to detail and a vague understanding of language would do the debate some good.

i do not advocate speeding, i do not believe that it should be illegal.

there is about as much evidence that speeding ‘kills’ as there is that fireworks hurt dogs. SFA.

perhaps next time im caught speeding i will go to court and say that because i had no intention to speed i should be let off.

at least when im caught i cop me lumps, not whine like a softhead zealot.

I’d like to purchase some of these illegal fireworks then light them up and lob them back into the store/carboot that I purchased them from! That should sort these dudes out.

So if a pet owner does the right thing, and brings their dog inside, but there are fireworks in the street and the dog jumps THROUGH the window, the owner should be prosecuted?

And as for the crime bit, Bonfire, you advocate speeding because you don’t believe the law is correct, or applies to you. Bit of a double standard?

I’m done.

the fireworks animals debate is a stalking horse for social engineers.

there are plenty of things that make dogs run away, thunder, cars backfiring, dogs on heat.

instead of banning fireworks, prosecute irresponsible animal owners who dont secure their yards or pets properly.

here we have an example of a person buying fireworks illegally, using fraud and misrepresentation and our legal system endorses this behaviour.

just remember he was trying to expose the sale of illegal fireworks (ie the ones that are too big) not just stop the sale of fireworks

“us” meant the other animal activists. It’s clear if you read the comment. Can you read?

Shut the fuck up Joey, we’ve already had the ridiculous “ban thunderstorms” debate. Spend a night out at the RSPCA helping euthanise pets who have got so scared they have lept through the windows to get out. Or bandaging bleeding animals who have done the same Then talk to me. Actually, no, don’t talk to me even then.

Idiot.

“the rest of us” who are trying to ban fireworks doesn’t include me. Yes, they’re dangerous. Yes, they’re used improperly and can hurt/kill animals. Same can/is said about motor vehicles. I think one weekend a year (even though morons use them on the preceding and following weekends as well) isn’t an impost on animal owners.

My dog hates thunderstorms! Ban thunderstorms!

It’s well documented. It was documented in advance. He is an animal activist, why would he use fireworks when he (and the rest of us) have been trying to ban fireworks across the whole of the ACT?

Get a brain bonfire. They’re fun!

so he says.

the fact is he committed an offence.

why are we even bothering to build a prison ?

But you would do that for no reason but yourself. This man did it because of ANIMAL WELFARE. Yes, even cats. I think he is a good guy. I also think it is very lucky I was not selected on his jury, as I would have had to step down as I am notsure I could have been impartial.

id liek to buy a machine gun and carry it around with me in the streets. but its ok, because i have no intention of using it.

interesting precedent.