Harrison man assisting police over Braddon hit and run

Heavs said :

bundah said :

Heavs said :

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

You would just make the best prosecutor.

Well i certainly wouldn’t beat around the bush like some Heavs.

I especially like how you can read the guys state of mind from some CCTV footage and a newspaper report. Juries love it when ‘the vibe’ is used as an argument to convict someone.

Well i’ve always been exceptionally talented and perceptive but hey don’t worry i make allowances for the intellectually challenged for it can’t be easy for them to grasp concepts 🙂

bundah said :

Heavs said :

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

You would just make the best prosecutor.

Well i certainly wouldn’t beat around the bush like some Heavs.

I especially like how you can read the guys state of mind from some CCTV footage and a newspaper report. Juries love it when ‘the vibe’ is used as an argument to convict someone.

Heavs said :

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

You would just make the best prosecutor.

Well i certainly wouldn’t beat around the bush like some Heavs.

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

You would just make the best prosecutor.

RadioVK said :

RadioVK said :

Leon said :

This incident might not have occurred if Simon Corbell had required the ACT Police to enforce more than a handful of the ACT Road Rules, through the ACT Policiing Purchase Agreement (http://www.police.act.gov.au/about-us.aspx),

Rule 238 makes it illegal to:
(1) walk along the road when it is practical to walk on the footpath or nature strip; or to
(2) walk in the same direction as the motor traffic, unless it is impractical to do so.

In relation to point 2, I was taught the exact opposite. You should walk facing oncoming traffic, so you can see and avoid what’s coming.

That is one road rule I intend to ignore unless someone makes a very good case to the contary.

You might be able to argue that, had these guys been walking into oncoming traffic, they may (or may not) have had time to avoid being hit.

Kindly ignore everything I just said. I’ve just realised that I’ve misread the original post, and made a twit of myself.

Nothing to see here. Carry on…

Self reflection, moderation and manners in a considered apology? Get offa this thread!

Gungahlin Al said :

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

So the police specifically ask people to contain their excitement at passing uninformed judgement. And the first thing out of you is this? FFS

So,your some kind of self appointed claytons moderator and censor on what is appropriate comment on a public forum.Get over yourself you’re not that important FFS!

RadioVK said :

Leon said :

This incident might not have occurred if Simon Corbell had required the ACT Police to enforce more than a handful of the ACT Road Rules, through the ACT Policiing Purchase Agreement (http://www.police.act.gov.au/about-us.aspx),

Rule 238 makes it illegal to:
(1) walk along the road when it is practical to walk on the footpath or nature strip; or to
(2) walk in the same direction as the motor traffic, unless it is impractical to do so.

In relation to point 2, I was taught the exact opposite. You should walk facing oncoming traffic, so you can see and avoid what’s coming.

That is one road rule I intend to ignore unless someone makes a very good case to the contary.

You might be able to argue that, had these guys been walking into oncoming traffic, they may (or may not) have had time to avoid being hit.

Kindly ignore everything I just said. I’ve just realised that I’ve misread the original post, and made a twit of myself.

Nothing to see here. Carry on…

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

So the police specifically ask people to contain their excitement at passing uninformed judgement. And the first thing out of you is this? FFS

Leon said :

This incident might not have occurred if Simon Corbell had required the ACT Police to enforce more than a handful of the ACT Road Rules, through the ACT Policiing Purchase Agreement (http://www.police.act.gov.au/about-us.aspx),

Rule 238 makes it illegal to:
(1) walk along the road when it is practical to walk on the footpath or nature strip; or to
(2) walk in the same direction as the motor traffic, unless it is impractical to do so.

In relation to point 2, I was taught the exact opposite. You should walk facing oncoming traffic, so you can see and avoid what’s coming.

That is one road rule I intend to ignore unless someone makes a very good case to the contary.

You might be able to argue that, had these guys been walking into oncoming traffic, they may (or may not) have had time to avoid being hit.

p1 said :

bundah said :

Well it’s pretty obvious that he had no intention of stopping particularly as he intended to inflict GBH and or death to those he had an altercation with previously,after all hate and anger are powerful emotions.

Nothing at all is pretty obvious about this.

Any chance you could add some detail? Maybe explain what you have read/seen/heard so we can all know what apparently obvious?

It was reported in the news that the pedestrians had been involved in an altercation with the driver of the ute at a service station a short time prior to hitting the pedestrians and then driving off.Police also said that he initially had driven past the pedestrians and then returned shortly after appearing to accelerate and veering into the pedestrians hitting them before driving away without stopping.

Draw your own conclusions.