Melbourne Protest Rally

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:56:15 +1100

Because the questions you asked applied to anyone on bail.

Is driving to and from work and sricing drunk the same?

IS the risk level the same?

Seems to me there's a rather large difference in risk level between
driving drunk and driving to and from work.

Why do you assume she's dangerous when sober and driving to and from
work?

Why do you assume she is incapable of behaving well at any time?

Do you know what she's like as a sober driver?

She hasn't been *convicted* of DUI.

Zebee

 

I've known all along
Your interpretation and mine differ.
That's why law is a difficult subject to see objectively.

So what we are fed by the government is all bullshit then.

 

You jump to conclusions too easily then.

If she hadn't killed anyone and then failed to render assistance then no
it isn't

If she hadn't killed anyone and failed to render assistance then I
wouldn't care less.

That's not how its presented in all the tv and newspaper and goevernment
ads.
Why hasn this been presented as misleading advertising?

 

What makes you think magistrates are infallible?

I admit I was being emotive but that doesn't change my opinion on the
magistrates infallibility.
I still believe the magistrate erred.
ONLY in the fact he allowed her to continue driving.
Thats all.

That's not what the community is led to believe.
this means that all the tv ads etc are misleading.

Moike I believe we are really disagreeing mainly on the magistrates
decision to allow her to keep driving.
Anything else brought up is more speculative and highly educational and
interesting debating.

 

BULLSHIT paul
where have I said she should be punished whilst on bail?
find those words please
otherwise don't make assumptions.

 

You are implying that somehow I am in charge of this motley crew since I
have voiced a personal opinion.
Anyone elses opinion is theirs.
That was the impression I got when I saw "smee" camp

 

That's just it
I'm not on anyone's side I am one person stating my own opinion.
Others agree with me, others don't.
It doesn't mean I have a "side" I choose.
I didn't choose any side in the first place.

 

Onya Paul!

"beer mate?" and 'show us ya tits" works well, Smee.

 

Come on Moike, I know you're not stupid, so why pretend you are, I
answered that already, go google it if you've forgotten it already.

JL
(it was in the first posting Smee is referring to)

 

And here we get to the point of difference, one which totally
contradicts your point in the other thread - I suppose expecting
consistency is unreasonable.

The argument was (and remains) that he failed to adequately manage the
threat to society by allowing her any access.

Errr no it's not. Unless Victorian bail laws differ to the rest of Oz
(I'll leave you to prove that case if you desire, the QLD ones already
posted are consistent with NSW's). Bail has 3 purposes (as per earlier
note). Being consistent with those purposes is all that's required. If
for example someone who's been charged with murder is remanded in
custody until trial then that rather damages his earning potential
doesn't it? If you think the magistrates decision is appropriate, good
on ya. However a lot of other people don't agree with you.

Magistrates are neither infallible nor omniscient. Community opinion
differs to the magistrates and yours, it's entirely appropriate in a
democratic society for people to protest if they feel that a judge has
made the wrong choice within what is in his power to choose.

No sweetheart, I'm using the entirely logical proposition, which you
don't like very much it seems, that when people get shitfaced and run
people down, the police find the person's blood and guts on the car and
she freely admits she did it and left the scene, then there is no
possible reason they should retain their licence while pending trial.

Whether you like it or not, I'm not the only one who thinks the judge
got it wrong, he failed to prevent someone who has proven (and yes an
admission of guilt is sufficient proof for the purposes of a bail
determination) to be incapable of being allowed to be in charge of a
vehicle from presenting a danger to other road users.

He should never have allowed her on the road, in my opinion, and that of
others. If you can't cope with someone stating that, tell someone who
cares.

Simple fact, she killed someone through negligent stupidity, she should
not be allowed near that weapon again in the interests of the
communities safety.

You're deliberately trying to misunderstand, you're not that stupid, so
stop pretending you can't understand simple similes.

You condescending ****, how about you take your hand off your miniscule
dick and try reading the fact I've already answered your little
question, you've carefully ignored the fact that I know full well and
have already defined the part you're carefully trying to ignore.

Bail is not *just* about ensuring someone turns up for trial, it's also
about ensuring the safety of the public. She is a danger to the public
and shouldn't be able to endanger the public further, pending her trial.
Same as Bryant wasn't allowed out on her trial.

She killed someone, in the circumstances I think she should be locked up
pending trial personally.

JL

 

You're not stupid so try reading with your eyes open, we're talking
about bail, not trials, stop seeing what you WANT to see and trying
reading what's already there.

When it's already been defined you're making yourself look stupid not
me. Try again.

Oh yes they do. The same bail applies to murder as mouthing off at a cop
? I don't think so. The same risks to the community apply regardless
of the seriousness of the crime ? I don't think so.

JL

 

AND the danger theyu present to the community. There is more than one
reason for bail vs remand and it aint just ensuring attendance

JL

 

So why do you keep pretending the last bit doesn't exist ?

JL

 

But Smee still persists with arguments like

"She admitted her guilt in court in the priliminary hearing.
The judge set bail conditions where they appeared to be too lenient for
what she admitted to.
I don't want to see her locked up before the main hearing but I don't
want her to be driving.
Thats what I've been saying all along
She *admitted* her guilt.
She *admitted* her guilt.
She *admitted* her guilt.
Now The rest of your argument about innocense before guilt is moot
unless she changes her plea in which she is entitled to.
The magistrate should not have allowed her back on the road.
Why do you then go on an on about legal hokey pokey?
I thought the whole thing was rather simple to understand. "

concepts such as "too lenient" and "admitted guilt" have no bearing on
a bail conditions.

The bit about "your argument about innocense before guilt is moot unless
she changes her plea" is most distrubing... and the reference to "legal
hokey pokey" is a bit revealing.

What you wrote was mostly quite reasonable, but although he denies it,
Smee's argument still seems to be based on an "eye for an eye" type of
approach.

I keep asking him about the meaning of bail, because the bulk of what he
has said (including the bit about the effect on the victims family)
indicate a fundamental misunderstanding about what bail is for.
Therefore his argument that the bail conditions are inadequate lacks
some validity.

The only really valid basis for objection would be to put the case that
allowing her to drive, but only to and from work, would put the
community in some real peril. I keep asking that, and he doesn't reply.

The other objections, based on the severity of the consequences of the
alleged offence, any admissions allegedly made by the accused, or the
fairness as against drivers who lose their licence for .05 offences do
not relate to the purposes of bail.

I suspect that I am being trolled by Smee. If so, I salute him.

Moike

 

AHHHAH ! So you do know that bail isn't just there to stop people
"skipping town" ! Why do you keep pretending it isn't ?

Seems you're the one confused on the issue.

JL

 

HEY
Even though Moike and I disagree here we are still mates.
Keep it civil John please

 

Geoff wrote:

Fair enough, but being realistic about the world we live in, it wouldn't
get the media attention required to achieve a change in view of the
people you're trying to influence otherwise.

yeah ok, but hey, a general protest attacks both fronts.

On that we differ

Good point, however that wasn't what I was getting at. I was merely
suggesting that I'm of the opinion that based on what I've seen and
heard of judgements the local and district court level don't seem to
recognise the seriousness of certain negligent actions on the part of
car drivers as being as serious as they are for bike riders. (Not that
they should feel lonely, nor does the RTA)

 

will never say no to a beer
Ta

 

Don't know if I wanna see Paul's tits Pete

 

<shrug> So why keep asking me ?

JL
(other of course than I've called you on a rather pissweak rhetorical
device and now you're stuck)