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

Max is 100% anecephalic.
======================
>
> The point is that it was part of their car stealing joy ride.

** You really are the biggest fucking IDIOT in the country.

On 24/02/2022 5:45 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.

He ought to get an award for removing malignant parts of the gene pool.

On 26/02/2022 2:13 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> 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.
>

Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically is it
a valid reason to keep driving.

They should have just stopped. By choosing to drive at 150km/h through
a roundabout, instead of stopping, they chose to endanger their own lives.

>>>> 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
>>>>>>

On 26/02/2022 2:58 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max is 100% anecephalic.
> ======================
>>
>> The point is that it was part of their car stealing joy ride.
>
> ** You really are the biggest fucking IDIOT in the country.
>

Easy to say that without actually addressing the issue.

Pathetic really.

On 24-Feb-22 10:30 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 24/02/2022 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.
>
> I think the same law applies to parties involved in illegal street
> racing. There have been cases where street races have resulted in one
> party crashing and getting killed, and the other party who wasn't
> involved in the accident in any way being charged in a similar fashion
> as this case.
>
>>

I think you're considering "joint criminal purpose" where there is an
agreement to commit a criminal act, and someone dies. The law then
considers all involved to be culpable.

In the instant case, there was no joint criminal purpose. They were all
speeding, but there had been no agreement, tacit or otherwise, that they
would do that. So the situation is different.

Sylvia.

Max is 100% anecephalic.
======================
>>
> >> The point is that it was part of their car stealing joy ride.
> >
> > ** You really are the biggest fucking IDIOT in the country.
> >
> Easy to say that without actually addressing the issue.

** The only ISSUE your rank absurdity - you vile retard.

Max has no reason to exist:

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

** Everything suggested exactly that.
>
> > But he would certainly have called the cops and
> > had them arrested and they would certainly have
> > been jailed given their previous criminal history.
> >
> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically ...

** But that is exactly what they feared.

Some lunatic is chasing them with no separation, at 4am and smashing a borrowed car into his own at crazy speeds to push them off the road and crash at high speed. Fucking terrifying.

Did you even try to read the news item at all ????

FOAD idiot.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> 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.

> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically is it
> a valid reason to keep driving.

Just as valid to want to be arrested and jailed, stupid.

> They should have just stopped.

They werent that stupid.

> By choosing to drive at 150km/h through a roundabout, instead of
> stopping, they chose to endanger their own lives.

And got the result they richly deserved.

Much better result than jailing the fuckers.

>>>>> 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

On 27/02/2022 10:13 am, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max has no reason to exist:
>
> ------------------------------------------
>>
>>>
>>>> There is nothing to suggest the ownerwould have beat them up or killed
>>>> them.
>
> ** Everything suggested exactly that.
>>
>>> But he would certainly have called the cops and
>>> had them arrested and they would certainly have
>>> been jailed given their previous criminal history.
>>>
>> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically ...
>
> ** But that is exactly what they feared.
>
> Some lunatic is chasing them with no separation, at 4am and smashing a borrowed car into his own at crazy speeds to push them off the road and crash at high speed. Fucking terrifying.
>

Clearly the owner wanted them to stop so that he could take possession
and control of the car that he owned. That was the driving force of his
actions, to recover his stolen property.

The only reason the cars collided is because the thief driver slammed on
the brakes. The thieves also threw objects out of the car at the owner
during the pursuit.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/why-sydney-vigilante-pursued-teens-before-fatal-crash/news-story/fd3f5b87f874f2d6a933d680c0e98a83

There is no suggestion the owner would physically harm or kill the
thieves. He was enraged his car was stolen - this does not equate to
wanting to inflict physical harm on the thieves.

Once the car was stopped and under his control, it made no sense to harm
the thieves. He wouldn't have minded if the thieves just ran away.

> Did you even try to read the news item at all ????
>

Clearly you didn't read it property, because it was not a borrowed car,
it was his other car.

I have read it, and while it would have been scary for the teenagers,
there needs to be evidence of actual threats of physical harm, or a
resonable apprehension of harm, for the case against the owner to be strong.

I agree with Sylvia, in that you would have to wonder what legal advice
he got to plead guilty.

On 27/02/2022 10:37 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> 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.
>
>> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically is
>> it a valid reason to keep driving.
>
> Just as valid to want to be arrested and jailed, stupid.
>

There were three people in the stolen car. They could have beaten up
the owner if he tried to detain them, and they could have run away.

>> They should have just stopped.
>
> They werent that stupid.
>
>> By choosing to drive at 150km/h through a roundabout, instead of
>> stopping, they chose to endanger their own lives.
>
> And got the result they richly deserved.
>
> Much better result than jailing the fuckers.
>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

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

>> Everything suggested exactly that.

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

>>> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically ...

>> But that is exactly what they feared.

>> Some lunatic is chasing them with no separation, at 4am and smashing a
>> borrowed car into his own at crazy speeds to push them off the road and
>> crash at high speed. Fucking terrifying.

> Clearly the owner wanted them to stop

Yes.

> so that he could take possession and control of the car that he owned.

Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.

> That was the driving force of his actions, to recover his stolen
> property.

Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.

> The only reason the cars collided is because the thief driver slammed on
> the brakes.

Wrong, as always.

> The thieves also threw objects out of the car at the owner during the
> pursuit.

> https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/why-sydney-vigilante-pursued-teens-before-fatal-crash/news-story/fd3f5b87f874f2d6a933d680c0e98a83

> There is no suggestion the owner would physically harm or kill the
> thieves. He was enraged his car was stolen - this does not equate to
> wanting to inflict physical harm on the thieves.

You have never had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> Once the car was stopped and under his control, it made no sense to harm
> the thieves.

Irrelevant to what he may well have done.

> He wouldn't have minded if the thieves just ran away.

You have no fucking idea if he would have minded or not.

>> Did you even try to read the news item at all ????

> Clearly you didn't read it property, because it was not a borrowed car,
> it was his other car.

> I have read it, and while it would have been scary for the teenagers,
> there needs to be evidence of actual threats of physical harm, or a
> resonable apprehension of harm, for the case against the owner to be
> strong.

BULLSHIT.

> I agree with Sylvia, in that you would have to wonder what legal advice
> he got to plead guilty.

More fool you two. It is obvious that the cops told him
that if he didn't admit to what he did, he could well end
up with a much worse penalty for manslaughter.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically is
>>> it a valid reason to keep driving.

>> Just as valid not to want to be arrested and jailed, stupid.

> There were three people in the stolen car. They couldhave beaten up the
> owner if he tried to detain them,

You don't know that either. They clearly didn't choose to
do that when he showed up as they were stealing his car.

> and they could have run away.

Ditto. And they clearly chose not to do that.

>>> They should have just stopped.

>> They werent that stupid.

>>> By choosing to drive at 150km/h through a roundabout, instead of
>>> stopping, they chose to endanger their own lives.

>> And got the result they richly deserved.

>> Much better result than jailing the fuckers.

>>>>>>> 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

Max has no reason to exist:
------------------------------------------
>>>
> >>>
> >>>> There is nothing to suggest the owner would have beat them up or killed
> >>>> them.
> >
> > ** Everything suggested exactly that.
> >>
> >>> But he would certainly have called the cops and
> >>> had them arrested and they would certainly have
> >>> been jailed given their previous criminal history.
> >>>
> >> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically ...
> >
> > ** But that is exactly what they feared.
> >
> > Some lunatic is chasing them with no separation, at 4am and smashing a borrowed car into his own at crazy speeds to push them off the road and crash at high speed. Fucking terrifying.
> >
> Clearly the owner wanted them to stop
>

** No chance existed of that ever happening.

He was crazy & enraged and set out to kill them.
And he bloody succeeded.

FUCK OFF YOU WOG NUT

...... Phil

On 25/2/22 10:01, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25-Feb-22 5:10 am, 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? Charge him with speeding then.
>
> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but whether he
> caused the deaths and injuries.
>
>
>> 7
>>> 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.
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s305.html
>
>
> Sylvia
Increasingly so,they have many restrictions now in NSW no pit
maneuvers,almost no high speed chases,the bloke next door does not even
bother with very high speed going the other way any more because the
speeds required after doing u turn are not allowed now

On 27/02/2022 12:44 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Phil Allison wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>>>> There is nothing to suggest the owner would have beat them up or
>>>>>> killed  them.
>
>>>  Everything suggested exactly that.
>
>>>>> But he would certainly have called the cops and
>>>>> had them arrested and they would certainly have
>>>>> been jailed given their previous criminal history.
>
>>>> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically ...
>
>>> But that is exactly what they feared.
>
>>> Some lunatic is chasing them with no separation, at 4am and smashing
>>> a borrowed car into his own at crazy speeds to push them off the road
>>> and crash at high speed.  Fucking terrifying.
>
>> Clearly the owner wanted them to stop
>
> Yes.
>
>> so that he could take possession and control of the car that he owned.
>
> Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.
>

You don't know that. The cars collided because the thief slammed on the
brakes.

>> That was the driving force of his actions, to recover his stolen
>> property.
>
> Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.
>
>> The only reason the cars collided is because the thief driver slammed
>> on the brakes.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>

It's in the article below. They know more than you.

>> The thieves also threw objects out of the car at the owner during the
>> pursuit.
>
>> https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/why-sydney-vigilante-pursued-teens-before-fatal-crash/news-story/fd3f5b87f874f2d6a933d680c0e98a83
>>
>
>> There is no suggestion the owner would physically harm or kill the
>> thieves.  He was enraged his car was stolen - this does not equate to
>> wanting to inflict physical harm on the thieves.
>
> You have never had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>
>> Once the car was stopped and under his control, it made no sense to
>> harm the thieves.
>
> Irrelevant to what he may well have done.
>
>> He wouldn't have minded if the thieves just ran away.
>
> You have no fucking idea if he would have minded or not.
>

Neither do you. So you have to decide what is most likely on the
evidence. That is how the law works.

There was no evidence that he was going to physically harm or kill the
thieves. He had nothing to gain from doing that.

>>> Did you even try to read the news item at all ????
>
>> Clearly you didn't read it property, because it was not a borrowed
>> car, it was his other car.
>
>> I have read it, and while it would have been scary for the teenagers,
>> there needs to be evidence of actual threats of physical harm, or a
>> resonable apprehension of harm, for the case against the owner to be
>> strong.
>
> BULLSHIT.
>
>> I agree with Sylvia, in that you would have to wonder what legal
>> advice he got to plead guilty.
>
> More fool you two. It is obvious that the cops told him
> that if he didn't admit to what he did, he could well end
> up with a much worse penalty for manslaughter.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 15:37:20 +1100, F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 25/2/22 10:01, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25-Feb-22 5:10 am, 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? Charge him with speeding then.
>> The issue here is not whether he was breaking the law, but whether he
>> caused the deaths and injuries.
>>
>>> 7
>>>> 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.
>>
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104/s305.html
>> Sylvia

> Increasingly so,they have many restrictions now in NSW no pit
> maneuvers,almost no high speed chases,

Those aren't the law.

> the bloke next door does not even bother with very high speed going the
> other way any more because the speeds required after doing u turn are
> not allowed now

And neither is that.

Max loves WOG CRIMINALS
Cos he IS one.

=======================

> > >
> > Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.
> >
> >> The only reason the cars collided is because the thief driver slammed
> >> on the brakes.

** Massive stupid LIE.

> It's in the article below.

** Paywall.
> >> I agree with Sylvia,

** But Sylvia is insane

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>>>> There is nothing to suggest the owner would have beat them up or
>>>>>>> killed them.
>>
>>>> Everything suggested exactly that.
>>
>>>>>> But he would certainly have called the cops and
>>>>>> had them arrested and they would certainly have
>>>>>> been jailed given their previous criminal history.
>>
>>>>> Only if they were fearful of their life or being harmed physically
>>>>> ...
>>
>>>> But that is exactly what they feared.
>>
>>>> Some lunatic is chasing them with no separation, at 4am and smashing
>>>> a borrowed car into his own at crazy speeds to push them off the road
>>>> and crash at high speed. Fucking terrifying.
>>
>>> Clearly the owner wanted them to stop

>> Yes.

>>> so that he could take possession and control of the car that he owned.

>> Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.

> You don't know that.

Yes we do.

> The cars collided because the thief slammed on the brakes.

Pity about how close he was travelling behind the car he was persuing.

>>> That was the driving force of his actions, to recover his stolen
>>> property.

>> Unlikely given that he was trying to ram the car off the road.

>>> The only reason the cars collided is because the thief driver slammed
>>> on the brakes.

>> Wrong, as always.

> It's in the article below.

Just because some fool journo claims something...

> They know more than you.

Wrong, as always.

>>> The thieves also threw objects out of the car at the owner during the
>>> pursuit.
>>
>>> https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/why-sydney-vigilante-pursued-teens-before-fatal-crash/news-story/fd3f5b87f874f2d6a933d680c0e98a83
>>
>>> There is no suggestion the owner would physically harm or kill the
>>> thieves. He was enraged his car was stolen - this does not equate to
>>> wanting to inflict physical harm on the thieves.
>> You have never had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
>>
>>> Once the car was stopped and under his control, it made no sense to
>>> harm the thieves.

>> Irrelevant to what he may well have done.

>>> He wouldn't have minded if the thieves just ran away.

>> You have no fucking idea if he would have minded or not.

> Neither do you.

I wasn't the one making that stupid claim.

> So you have to decide what is most likely on the evidence.

And the evidence is that he was driving very close to the car he
was persuing, so close that he hit it when they put on the brakes.

> That is how the law works.

Bullshit it is with criminal charges.

> There was no evidence that he was goingto physically harm or kill the
> thieves.

No other reason for being so close to the car he was persuing, fuckwit.

> He had nothing to gain from doing that.

Wrong, as always.

>>>> Did you even try to read the news item at all ????

>>> Clearly you didn't read it property, because it was not a borrowed
>>> car, it was his other car.

>>> I have read it, and while it would have been scary for the teenagers,
>>> there needs to be evidence of actual threats of physical harm, or a
>>> resonable apprehension of harm, for the case against the owner to be
>>> strong.

>> BULLSHIT.

>>> I agree with Sylvia, in that you would have to wonder what legal
>>> advice he got to plead guilty.

>> More fool you two. It is obvious that the cops told him
>> that if he didn't admit to what he did, he could well end
>> up with a much worse penalty for manslaughter.

Peter Jason wrote:
----------------------------

>
> >He ought to get an award for removing malignant parts of the gene pool.
> He might be contacted for advice about removing trolls from this here
> hallowed NG.

** Trolls ?

Like Rod, Sylvia, Max and YOU

.....Phil

On 28/02/2022 6:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:37:20 +1000, keithr0 <user@account.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2022 5:45 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.
>>
>> He ought to get an award for removing malignant parts of the gene pool.
> He might be contacted for advice about removing trolls from this here
> hallowed NG.

There are only trolls in aus.legal, it's a requirement for entry.

On 28/02/2022 9:42 am, keithr0 wrote:
> On 28/02/2022 6:14 am, Peter Jason wrote:

>> He might be contacted for advice about removing trolls from this here
>> hallowed NG.
>
> There are only trolls in aus.legal, it's a requirement for entry.

There's a couple in aus.cars, and in fact you're replying to one right
here.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 28/2/22 07:14, Peter Jason wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 14:37:20 +1000, keithr0 <user@account.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/02/2022 5:45 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.
>>
>> He ought to get an award for removing malignant parts of the gene pool.
> He might be contacted for advice about removing trolls from this here
> hallowed NG.

Actually, it's a *hollowed* newsgroup, *hollowed out* because of
Darren's wild rantings at anyone with a dissenting view to his own. Make
that anyone with a view - period!

--
Xeno