Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>

>>>>> I wonder what legal advice he got.

>>>> Certainly from someone who knows a lot more about the law than you
>>>> do.

>>>>> Since he pleaded guilty, any appeal can only be over the sentence.

>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
>>>>> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who
>>>>> chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.

>>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>
>>> So what?

>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>> and doing that clearly did cause death.

>>> Charge him with speeding then.

>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.

>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking thelaw,but whether he
>>> caused the deaths and injuries.

>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>> driving that fast if he had not persued them,

> that's irrelevant.

Bullshit it is.

> that's the same argument as saying a woman wouldn't have been raped if
> she wasn't where she was at the time

Bullshit it is.

>> fool.

> yes you are

You are pathetic and a fool.

>>>>> Granted, the driver wouldn't driven that fast if the accused hadn't
>>>>> been behind them, but he wouldn't have been there if his car hadn't
>>>>> been stolen.

>>>>> I'm not aware of any police being found guilty of such an offence
>>>>> when a chase ends badly.

>>>> Corse not, because they are allowed to persue stolen vehicles at
>>>> well over the speed limit, fool.

>>> The police have some exemptions. It's not carte blanche.

>> But they are allowed to exceed the speed limit and to persue
>> a stolen vehicle, fool.

>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s305.html

Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>

>>>>> I wonder what legal advice he got.

>>>> Certainly from someone who knows a lot more about the law than you
>>>> do.

>>>>> Since he pleaded guilty, any appeal can only be over the sentence.

>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
>>>>> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who
>>>>> chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.

>>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.

>>> So what?

>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>> and doing that clearly did cause death.

>>> Charge him with speeding then.

>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.

> There was certainly deaths but no one knows how the car thieves would
> have driven even if they weren't being chased.

That's bullshit. Only a fool would attempt a roundabout
at 150kmph when not being pursued.

>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law,but whether he
>>> caused the deaths and injuries.

>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>> driving that fast if he had not persued them, fool.

> Maybe.

No maybe about it.

> The sentence was short so it appears the magistratedidn't apportion all
> the blame to the chasing driver.

The length of the sentenence isnt determined by the blame.

Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>> Peter Jason wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>>>> I wonder what legal advice he got. Since he pleaded guilty, any
>>>>> appeal can only be over the sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
>>>>> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who
>>>>> chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>>>>>
>>>>> Granted, the driver wouldn't driven that fast if the accused hadn't
>>>>> been
>>>>> behind them, but he wouldn't have been there if his car hadn't been
>>>>> stolen.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not aware of any police being found guilty of such an offence
>>>>> when a
>>>>> chase ends badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>> What happens to these cars after a successful heist?
>>>> I suppose they're driven to a fence who'd pay about $5000 for it,
>>>> after which it would be re-birthed.
>>>> Not bad for a night's work?
>>>
>>> Very difficult to rebirth cars these days, many ways cars and parts
>>> can be identified and many computer records, most car computer
>>> components have the cars vin stored in them.
>>> The car was an SS Commodore, the engine and trans alone is worth more
>>> than $10k but its too easily traced so not easy to sell without proof
>>> ot ownership.

>> Very easy to sell without proof of ownership in fact.

> Its not difficult to find fools to part with their money.

Not just fool, also those that want a car at a decent price.

>> The seller with a clue hardly ever gets caughtwhen it is found to have
>> been stolen.

> Most likely because few Police resources are put toward catching people
> who commit such crimes.

Not police recources, its the registry people who dont
carefully check all the vins on a vehicle being registered.

Thats the only way you can catch those stolen vehicles
and if they have been bought for cash on facebook etc,
no chance of catching the thief, so even the registry
people dont bother to put much effort into that.

On 25/2/22 10:06, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 25/02/2022 7:04 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 05:10:00 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what legal advice he got.
>>> Certainly from someone who knows a lot more about the law than you do.
>>>
>>>> Since he pleaded guilty, any appeal  can only be over the sentence.
>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
>>>> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who
>>>> chose
>>>> to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>>>
>>>> Granted, the driver wouldn't driven that fast if the accused hadn't
>>>> been
>>>> behind them, but he wouldn't have been there if his car hadn't been
>>>> stolen.
>>>> I'm not aware of any police being found guilty of such an offence
>>>> when a
>>>> chase ends badly.
>>> Corse not, because they are allowed to persue stolen vehicles at well
>>> over
>>> the speed limit, fool.
>> I wonder why so many nasty narcissists have such low literacy levels?
>
>
> many are bogans and poorly educated I guess
>

Like Darren who failed year 9 at a Tech School, FFS. Attendance was 90%
of the pass mark at those schools - which was one of the reasons Kennett
got rid of them.

On 25/02/2022 11:47 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>
>>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>>>>>
>
>
>>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of
>>>>>> negligent driving occasioning death and negligent driving
>>>>>> occasioning grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the driver
>>>>>> of the stolen car who chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>
>>>>>  He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>>
>>>> So what?
>
>>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.
>
>>>> Charge him with speeding then.
>
>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.
>
>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking thelaw, but whether
>>>> he caused the deaths and injuries.
>
>>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>> driving that fast if he had not persued them,
>
>> that's irrelevant.
>
> Bullshit it is.

look up proximate cause vs direct cause. it's many years since i studied
this stuff so the nuances escape me, but the fact remains that the teens
were the cause of their own demise because they would still be alive if
they hadn't stolen the car.

>
>> that's the same argument as saying a woman wouldn't have been raped
>> if she wasn't where she was at the time
>
> Bullshit it is.

of course it is. "They wouldn't have been driving that fast if he had
not pursued them" vs "she wouldn't have been raped if she'd not been there"

according to your rationale women are responsible for being raped and
not victims. try running that argument past any jury

>
>>> fool.
>
>> yes you are
>
> You are pathetic and a fool.

i could never hope to achieve your high status in that regard

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 24-Feb-22 6:45 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>
>
> I wonder what legal advice he got. Since he pleaded guilty, any appeal
> can only be over the sentence.
>
> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who chose
> to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>
> Granted, the driver wouldn't driven that fast if the accused hadn't been
> behind them, but he wouldn't have been there if his car hadn't been stolen.
>
> I'm not aware of any police being found guilty of such an offence when a
> chase ends badly.
>
> Sylvia.
>
>
>

I should mention something that Pelican would probably have said if he
were still posting:

Since this was a guilty plea, the sentence may have been decided based
on a set of agreed facts, which do not necessarily reflect the true
level of culpability of the accused.

Sylvia.

On 25/02/2022 10:01 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25-Feb-22 5:10 am, Rod Speed wrote:

>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
>>> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who
>>> chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>>
>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>
> So what? Charge him with speeding then.
>
> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but whether he
> caused the deaths and injuries.

He was certainly complicit in their deaths and injuries.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>

>>>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of
>>>>>>> negligent driving occasioning death and negligent driving
>>>>>>> occasioning grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the driver
>>>>>>> of the stolen car who chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.

>>>>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.

>>>>> So what?

>>>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.

>>>>> Charge him with speeding then.

>>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.

>>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking thelaw, but whether he
>>>>> caused the deaths and injuries.

>>>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>>> driving that fast if he had not pursued them,

>>> that's irrelevant.

>> Bullshit it is.

> look up proximate cause vs direct cause.

No point, you are still wrong.

> it's many years since i studied this stuff

And you never did understand that stuff.

> so the nuances escape me,

Just like everything else does.

> but the fact remains that the teens were thecause of their own demise
> because they wouldstill be alive if they hadn't stolen the car.

They would still be alive if the owner had not pursued them.

>>> that's the same argument as saying a woman wouldn'thave been raped if
>>> she wasn't where she was at the time

>> Bullshit it is.

> of course it is.

Bullshit it is.

> "They wouldn't have been driving that fast ifhe had not pursued them"
> vs "she wouldn'thave been raped if she'd not been there"

She would not have been raped if her parents had not fucked.

> according to your rationale women areresponsible for being raped and
> not victims.

Wrong, as always.

> try running that argument past any jury

No judge would let you do that, fuckwit.

>>>> fool.

>>> yes you are

>> You are pathetic and a fool.

> i could never hope to achieve your high status in that regard

You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, you pathetic
fool.

On 25/02/2022 11:39 am, Daryl wrote:
> On 25/2/2022 10:29 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>> and doing that clearly did cause death.
>>
>>> Charge him with speeding then.
>>
>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.
>>
>
> There was certainly deaths but no one knows how the car thieves would
> have driven even if they weren't being chased.

That may be so, but it is largely irrelevant as far as this case is
concerned. All the law can deal with is what is known to have happened,
which in this case was the culprits fleeing from the car owner who was
chasing them.

>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law,but whether he
>>> caused the deaths and injuries.
>>
>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>> driving that fast if he had not persued them, fool.
>
> Maybe.
> The sentence was short so it appears the magistrate didn't apportion all
> the blame to the chasing driver.

The sentence reflects what the Magistrate determines is the car owner's
degree of culpability which probably wasn't a hell of a lot.

It does seem somewhat bizarre that someone is being punished for trying
to prevent a crime and retrieve property that is rightfully theirs, but
at the end of the day what he did was ridiculously stupid. Fortunately
the only casualties were two scumbags that I'm sure the world won't
miss, and this is the sticking point for most people.

However, had it been two innocent bystanders instead of the scumbags who
were killed the whole picture would have changed dramatically for most
people, yet the result would be the same in the eyes of the law.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/02/2022 2:03 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/02/2022 10:01 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25-Feb-22 5:10 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning
>>>> grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen
>>>> car who chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>>>
>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>>
>> So what? Charge him with speeding then.
>>
>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but whether he
>> caused the deaths and injuries.
>
> He was certainly complicit in their deaths and injuries.
>
>

yes but he was not driving the car that killed them

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 25/02/2022 10:25 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote

>> Very difficult to rebirth cars these days, many ways cars and parts
>> can be identified and many computer records, most car computer
>> components have the cars vin stored in them.
>> The car was an SS Commodore, the engine and trans alone is worth more
>> than $10k but its too easily traced so not easy to sell without proof
>> ot ownership.
>
> Very easy to sell without proof of ownership in fact.
>
> The seller with a clue hardly ever gets caught when it is found to have
> been stolen.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you fucktarded
noisemaker.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/02/2022 12:19 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote

>
>> Most likely because few Police resources are put toward catching
>> people who commit such crimes.
>
> Not police recources, its the registry people who dont
> carefully check all the vins on a vehicle being registered.
>
> Thats the only way you can catch those stolen vehicles
> and if they have been bought for cash on facebook etc,
> no chance of catching the thief, so even the registry
> people dont bother to put much effort into that.

Again, you have absolutely no idea.

Most stolen cars get broken up for parts these days, not sold as
complete cars. The stolen vehicles left intact get "exported" to other
countries where the authorities have no connection with what happens here.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/02/2022 2:04 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote

>
>> but the fact remains that the teens  were thecause of  their own
>> demise because they wouldstill be alive if  they hadn't stolen the car.
>
> They would still be alive if the owner had not pursued them.
Absolute bullshit.

Had the owner not chased them they could have boosted the car, sold it
to whoever wanted it, and used the cash to buy drugs where they
overdosed and died that day. You have no way of knowing *what* could
have happened to them.

--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/02/2022 2:04 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of
>>>>>>>> negligent driving occasioning death and negligent driving
>>>>>>>> occasioning grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the
>>>>>>>> driver of the stolen car who chose to attempt a roundabout at
>>>>>>>> 150km/h.
>
>>>>>>>  He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>
>>>>>> So what?
>
>>>>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.
>
>>>>>> Charge him with speeding then.
>
>>>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.
>
>>>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but
>>>>>> whether he caused the deaths and injuries.
>
>>>>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>>>> driving that fast if he had not pursued them,
>
>>>> that's irrelevant.
>
>>> Bullshit it is.
>
>> look up proximate cause vs direct cause.
>
> No point, you are still wrong.
>
>> it's many years since i studied this stuff
>
> And you never did understand that stuff.

funny how i was one of only 240 ppl in Australia with the same
qualifications then, according to the industry journal, which made me
one of the most highly qualified ppl in that field of expertise.

>
>> so the nuances escape me,
>
> Just like everything else does.
>
>> but the fact remains that the teens  were the cause of  their own
>> demise because they would still be alive if  they hadn't stolen the car.
>
> They would still be alive if the owner had not pursued them.

so like I said, look up proximate cause vs direct cause. he was a
contributing cause to their deaths but not the primary cause. the law
cannot make one person solely responsible for the actions of another.

>
>>>> that's the same argument as saying a woman wouldn't have been raped
>>>> if  she wasn't where she was at the time
>
>>> Bullshit it is.
>
>> of course it is.
>
> Bullshit it is.
>
>> "They wouldn't have been driving that fast if he had  not pursued
>> them" vs "she wouldn't have been raped if she'd not been there"
>
> She would not have been raped if her parents had not fucked.

that cause is too remote to be relevant, so once again, look up
proximate cause

>
>> according to your rationale women are responsible for being raped
>> and  not victims.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> try running that argument past any jury
>
> No judge would let you do that, fuckwit.
>
>>>>> fool.
>
>>>> yes you are
>
>>> You are pathetic and a fool.
>
>> i could never hope to achieve your high status in that regard
>
> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, you pathetic
> fool.

bye moron!

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

On 25/02/2022 2:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/02/2022 10:25 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>
>>> Very difficult to rebirth cars these days, many ways cars and parts
>>> can be identified and many computer records, most car computer
>>> components have the cars vin stored in them.
>>> The car was an SS Commodore, the engine and trans alone is worth
>>> more than $10k but its too easily traced so not easy to sell without
>>> proof ot ownership.
>>
>> Very easy to sell without proof of ownership in fact.
>>
>> The seller with a clue hardly ever gets caught when it is found to
>> have been stolen.
>
> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you fucktarded
> noisemaker.
>

he considers himself an expert on everything

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
> Daryl wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.

>>>> Charge him with speeding then.

>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.

>> There was certainly deaths but no one knows how the carthieves would
>> have driven even if they weren't being chased.

Bullshit.

> That may be so,

Nope.

> but it is largely irrelevant as far as this case is concerned.

Nope.

> All the law can deal with is what is known to have happened, which in
> this case was the culprits fleeing from the car ownerwho was chasing
> them.

And wouldn't have driven that fast into that roundabout if they were not
being persued.

>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law,but whether he
>>>> caused the deaths and injuries.

>>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>> driving that fast if he had not persued them, fool.

>> Maybe.

>> The sentence was short so it appears the magistrate didn't apportion
>> all the blame to the chasing driver.

> The sentence reflects what the Magistrate determinesis the car owner's
> degree of culpability

That's wrong too.

> which probably wasn't a hell of a lot.

In fact the stupid magistrate raved on about how it was in fact a hell of
a lot.

> It does seem somewhat bizarre that someoneis being punished for trying
> to prevent a crime

He wasn't trying to prevent a crime, that had already happened.

> and retrieve property that is rightfully theirs,

You aren't allowed to do that so dangerously, stupid.

> but at the end of the day what he did was ridiculously stupid.

Not really. That is the only real way to ensure the culprits are
identified.

> Fortunately the only casualties were two scumbagsthat I'm sure the
> world won't miss, and this is thesticking point for most people.

> However, had it been two innocent bystanders instead of the scumbagswho
> were killed the whole picture would have changed dramaticallyfor most
> people, yet the result would be the same in the eyes of the law.

No it would not. The stupid car thieves would be up on a manslaughter
charge and the owner may not even be prosecuted.

Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
> Noddy wrote
>> Sylvia Else wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of negligent
>>>>> driving occasioning death and negligent driving occasioning grievous
>>>>> harm, since in both cases, it was the driver of the stolen car who
>>>>> chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>>>>
>>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>>>
>>> So what? Charge him with speeding then.
>>>
>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but whether he
>>> caused the deaths and injuries.
>>
>> He was certainly complicit in their deaths and injuries.

> yes but he was not driving the car that killed them

He did cause their death.

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote

>>> Most likely because few Police resources are put toward catching
>>> people who commit such crimes.

>> Not police recources, its the registry people who dont
>> carefully check all the vins on a vehicle being registered.

>> Thats the only way you can catch those stolen vehicles
>> and if they have been bought for cash on facebook etc,
>> no chance of catching the thief, so even the registry
>> people dont bother to put much effort into that.

> Again, you have absolutely no idea.

We'll see...

> Most stolen cars get broken up for parts these days,

BULLSHIT. Most get torched by the thieves.

> not sold as complete cars.

Never said that many are.

> The stolen vehicles left intact get "exported"to other countries where
> the authorities haveno connection with what happens here.

Wot I said, fuckwit. But that is even easier to police.

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote

>>> but the fact remains that the teens were thecause of their own
>>> demise because they wouldstill be alive if they hadn't stolen the car.

>> They would still be alive if the owner had not pursued them.

> Absolute bullshit.

Fact, actually.

> Had the owner not chased them they could have boostedthe car, sold it to
> whoever wanted it, and used the cash tobuy drugs where they overdosed
> and died that day.

Very bloody unlikely to die from the drugs they got that way.

> You have no way of knowing *what*could have happened to them.

But very bloody unlikely that the drugs would have killed them, fuckwit.

Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>
>>>>>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of
>>>>>>>>> negligent driving occasioning death and negligent driving
>>>>>>>>> occasioning grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the
>>>>>>>>> driver of the stolen car who chose to attempt a roundabout at
>>>>>>>>> 150km/h.
>>
>>>>>>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>>
>>>>>>> So what?
>>
>>>>>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>>>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.
>>
>>>>>>> Charge him with speeding then.
>>
>>>>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.
>>
>>>>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but whether
>>>>>>> he caused the deaths and injuries.
>>
>>>>>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>>>>> driving that fast if he had not pursued them,
>>
>>>>> that's irrelevant.
>>
>>>> Bullshit it is.
>>
>>> look up proximate cause vs direct cause.
>>
>> No point, you are still wrong.
>>
>>> it's many years since i studied this stuff
>>
>> And you never did understand that stuff.

> funny how i was one of only 240 ppl in Australia with the same
> qualifications then, according to the industry journal, which mademe one
> of the most highly qualified ppl in that field of expertise.

Not in the particular area being discussed you weren't.

>>> so the nuances escape me,

And that wouldn't have happened if you really were that uniquely qualified.

>> Just like everything else does.

>>> but the fact remains that the teens were the cause of their own
>>> demise because they would still be alive if they hadn't stolen the
>>> car.

>> They would still be alive if the owner had not pursued them.

> so like I said, look up proximate cause vs direct cause.

Like I said, no need, I understand that better than you do thanks.

> he was a contributing cause to their deaths but not the primary cause.

More irrelevant bullshit.

> the law cannot make one person solely responsible for the actions of
> another.

No one said it could, fuckwit. Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

>>>>> that's the same argument as saying a woman wouldn't have been raped
>>>>> if she wasn't where she was at the time
>>
>>>> Bullshit it is.
>>
>>> of course it is.
>>
>> Bullshit it is.

And that's why you got the bums rush you so richly deserve.

>>> "They wouldn't have been driving that fast if he had not pursued
>>> them" vs "she wouldn't have been raped if she'd not been there"

>> She would not have been raped if her parents had not fucked.

> that cause is too remote to be relevant,

Pathetic.

> so once again, look up proximate cause

You are the one that needs to do that.

>>> according to your rationale women areresponsible for being raped and
>>> not victims.
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>>> try running that argument past any jury
>>
>> No judge would let you do that, fuckwit.
>>
>>>>>> fool.
>>
>>>>> yes you are
>>
>>>> You are pathetic and a fool.
>>
>>> i could never hope to achieve your high status in that regard
>>
>> You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag, you pathetic
>> fool.

> bye moron!

Fat lot of good that will do you, gutless.

Yosemite Sam <felix@invalid.com> wrote
> On 25/02/2022 2:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/02/2022 10:25 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>
>>>> Very difficult to rebirth cars these days, many ways cars and parts
>>>> can be identified and many computer records, most car computer
>>>> components have the cars vin stored in them.
>>>> The car was an SS Commodore, the engine and trans alone is worth more
>>>> than $10k but its too easily traced so not easy to sell without proof
>>>> ot ownership.
>>>
>>> Very easy to sell without proof of ownership in fact.
>>>
>>> The seller with a clue hardly ever gets caught when it is found to
>>> have been stolen.
>>
>> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you fucktarded
>> noisemaker.
>>
>
> he considers himself an expert on everything

Nope, just leaves fools like you, Else and that fool Noody for dead.

On 25/2/2022 2:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> On 25/02/2022 2:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/02/2022 10:25 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>
>>>> Very difficult to rebirth cars these days, many ways cars and parts
>>>> can be identified and many computer records, most car computer
>>>> components have the cars vin stored in them.
>>>> The car was an SS Commodore, the engine and trans alone is worth
>>>> more than $10k but its too easily traced so not easy to sell without
>>>> proof ot ownership.
>>>
>>> Very easy to sell without proof of ownership in fact.
>>>
>>> The seller with a clue hardly ever gets caught when it is found to
>>> have been stolen.
>>
>> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you fucktarded
>> noisemaker.
>>
>
> he considers himself an expert on everything
>
>
Hmmm, so does Darren for that matter.

Such a sad thing, for him, that he's the only one.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 25/02/2022 11:44 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>
>>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>> I wonder what legal advice he got.
>
>>>>> Certainly from someone who knows a lot more about the law than you
>>>>> do.
>
>>>>>> Since he pleaded guilty, any appeal  can only be over the sentence.
>
>>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of
>>>>>> negligent driving occasioning death and negligent driving
>>>>>> occasioning grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the driver
>>>>>> of the stolen car who chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>
>>>>>  He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>
>>>> So what?
>
>>>  So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.
>
>>>> Charge him with speeding then.
>
>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.
>
>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law,
>>>> but whether he  caused the deaths and injuries.
>
>>>  Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>> driving that fast if he had not persued them, fool.
>
>> Why didn't the people being chased just stop their car?
>
> Because they had stolen his car, stupid.
>

The point is that it was part of their car stealing joy ride.

They could have just stopped if they wanted to.

There is nothing to suggest the owner would have beat them up or killed
them.

>> What were they worried about?
>
> Getting fucked over by the car owner, stupid.
>

What were they worried about the owner doing to them?

>> Did the pursuers threaten them earlier?
>
> Only a fool like you would have stopped if he hadnt done that.
>
>>>>>> Granted, the driver wouldn't driven that fast if the accused
>>>>>> hadn't been behind them, but he wouldn't have been there if his
>>>>>> car hadn't been stolen.
>
>>>>>> I'm not aware of any police being found guilty of such an offence
>>>>>> when a chase ends badly.
>
>>>>>  Corse not, because they are allowed to persue stolen vehicles at
>>>>> well over the speed limit, fool.
>
>>>> The police have some exemptions. It's not carte blanche.
>
>>>  But they are allowed to exceed the speed limit and to persue
>>> a stolen vehicle, fool.
>
>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s305.html
>>>>

On 25/02/2022 9:38 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 25/2/2022 2:36 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>> On 25/02/2022 2:18 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 25/02/2022 10:25 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote
>>>
>>>>> Very difficult to rebirth cars these days, many ways cars and
>>>>> parts can be identified and many computer records, most car
>>>>> computer components have the cars vin stored in them.
>>>>> The car was an SS Commodore, the engine and trans alone is worth
>>>>> more than $10k but its too easily traced so not easy to sell
>>>>> without proof ot ownership.
>>>>
>>>> Very easy to sell without proof of ownership in fact.
>>>>
>>>> The seller with a clue hardly ever gets caught when it is found to
>>>> have been stolen.
>>>
>>> You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you
>>> fucktarded noisemaker.
>>>
>>
>> he considers himself an expert on everything
>>
>>
> Hmmm, so does Darren for that matter.
>
> Such a sad thing, for him, that he's the only one.
>

cut from the same cloth

--
https://tinyurl.com/Yosemite-Sam
"His opinions have been crushed into insignificant dust by
the enormous weight of his lies"- Alvey on the Fraudster
"His self serving ego pumping comments just
read like witless wankery"- Clocky on Keefy

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote

>>>>>>> <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-24/sydney-man-jailed-for-crash-that-killed-teenage-brothers/100856996>
>>
>>>>>>> I wonder what legal advice he got.
>>
>>>>>> Certainly from someone who knows a lot more about the law than you
>>>>>> do.
>>
>>>>>>> Since he pleaded guilty, any appeal can only be over the sentence.
>>
>>>>>>> I have some difficulty understanding how he was guilty of
>>>>>>> negligent driving occasioning death and negligent driving
>>>>>>> occasioning grievous harm, since in both cases, it was the driver
>>>>>>> of the stolen car who chose to attempt a roundabout at 150km/h.
>>
>>>>>> He clearly must have been doing the same speed, fool.
>>
>>>>> So what?
>>
>>>> So he clearly was driving dangerously
>>>> and doing that clearly did cause death.
>>
>>>>> Charge him with speeding then.
>>
>>>> The cops arent that stupid when death has resulted.
>>
>>>>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law,
>>>>> but whether he caused the deaths and injuries.
>>
>>>> Of course he did that. They wouldn't have been
>>>> driving that fast if he had not persued them, fool.
>>
>>> Why didn't the people being chased just stop their car?
>> Because they had stolen his car, stupid.

> The point is that it was part of their car stealing joy ride.

You don't know that.

> They could have just stopped if they wanted to.

Yes, but they weren't that stupid because they knew
that it would be off to jail for them if they did.

> There is nothing to suggest the ownerwould have beat them up or killed
> them.

But he would certainly have called the cops and
had them arrested and they would certainly have
been jailed given their previous criminal history.

>>> What were they worried about?

>> Getting fucked over by the car owner, stupid.

> What were they worried about the owner doing to them?

At a minimum calling the cops and having them arrested.

And given he is so aggressive, could
well have beaten the shit out of them too.

>>> Did the pursuers threaten them earlier?

>> Only a fool like you would have stopped if he hadn't done that.

>>>>>>> Granted, the driver wouldn't driven that fast if the accused
>>>>>>> hadn't been behind them, but he wouldn't have been there if his
>>>>>>> car hadn't been stolen.
>>
>>>>>>> I'm not aware of any police being found guilty of such an offence
>>>>>>> when a chase ends badly.
>>
>>>>>> Corse not, because they are allowed to persue stolen vehicles at
>>>>>> well over the speed limit, fool.
>>
>>>>> The police have some exemptions. It's not carte blanche.
>>
>>>> But they are allowed to exceed the speed limit and to persue
>>>> a stolen vehicle, fool.
>>
>>>>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s305.html