Blotto and unlicensed in Red Hill

OpenYourMind said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Crushing the repeat drink driving offender’s car is the best solution. How is it acceptable to crush a car owned by a bogan doing a burnout and not for idiots like Mr .267. At least Bogan Burnout hopefully has some control over his vehicle, at .267 I doubt that guy had any. It’s not fair on everyone else that we get to occurrence number 6.

And before anyone says what about his family’s need for a car; why punish them? Well if he’s driving round that drunk, he is likely to write-off the family’s car anyway.
What about if the car is borrowed? Well, I’m guessing repeat offenders are likely to be well known to anyone lending a car – the car could easily have been written off anyway.

Fix this problem now. We don’t need that kind of person f**king over someone else’s Christmas.

You don’t need to crush cars! Just harsher penalties for repeat offenders! Jail after the 3rd offence!

Im not a fan of the threat of car crushing, its just another way to manipulate and control the community into conformity… it wont be long before off road vehicles are crushed if they are found driving on an unsealed road! That’s the way the Canberra government is playing it… And I enjoy my 4×4 driving.

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

Is that you Refshauge??YOu should be working on clearing the backlog, not chatting to people on RA! hahaha!

CraigT said :

Ben_Dover said :

I only hope its you or yours he runs over, while blind drunk and unlicensed, in order to make him worth punishing in your estimation.

Maybe the wowsers should have *you* locked up for wishing bad things to me and my loved ones, eh, BenDover, seeing as you are clearly E V I L ?

But I haven’t. I only hoped that should he go out drunk driving again, that you are in front of his car, get mercilessly run down and spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair eating through a straw. After all; in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills. So, no harm in my wishing that then eh?

” Alan’s 2nd Law of Newsgroups: Any sufficiently advanced troll is
  indistinguishable from a genuine kook.” – Alan Morgan.

Or see Nathan Poe’s law: Without a winking smiley or other context to indicate humour, any parody of an extreme opinion is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Four posts in a row is a good sign but hardly conclusive when it’s such a well known meme.

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

Err, do you know what reckless means CraigT? Intent is not a factor. And there’s no excuse for thinking that a serious accident or damage to people or property was not reasonably foreseeable.

I don’t understand how people like this are still on the road. I know that he shouldn’t have been (as he was unlicenced) but the fact remains that he was. That tends to indicate that there’s something very wrong with the system.

IMHO, given this is his sixth offence I would be hoping for a prison term of at least 6 months. I know, I know, wishful thinking.

Pork Hunt said :

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

You are f#*ked in the head mate.

I’m hoping you are correct or else CraigT is simply a massive stirrer. The alternative, that he believes what his writing to be true, is simply too horrible to contemplate.

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

You are f#*ked in the head mate.

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

So you’re okay with any traffic offence as long as no damage or harm is caused?

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

Ben_Dover said :

I only hope its you or yours he runs over, while blind drunk and unlicensed, in order to make him worth punishing in your estimation.

Maybe the wowsers should have *you* locked up for wishing bad things to me and my loved ones, eh, BenDover, seeing as you are clearly E V I L ?