For COPS only

[MisterD]

GIXser does have support girls, and whilst not always eloquent the message is clear, the police wasted taxpayers money and time on a case that no jury in the country would convict on.


So the police should not be prosecuting in cases where they think that the juries will be too emotive? How stupid is that? A crime is a crime, and causing someone's death through negligence, is most definitely a crime.

[Patrick]

Lubing up a baton and inserting it inside a women however is unlikely to be enjoyable, under most circumstances requiring a hefty wad of cash to facilitate.
That copper is going to be feeling wood himself shortly.

Could just be kinky play too can't it?? Let the jury decide...

[GIXser]

Why don't you just do the world a favour and stick your head in a bucket of water three times....and take it out twice.

love you too, moped boy!!! i will show you my love should i be fortunate to meet you on a ride-- until then sweet dreams---

[Grahameeboy]

love you too, moped boy!!! i will show you my love should i be fortunate to meet you on a ride-- until then sweet dreams---

:grouphug: .....................................

[SixPackBack]

Geeze......at 9pm y'ad think you would be more relaxed.......I always see beyond people so will pray for you my friend.........:grouphug:

Not another bible basher....no wonder your delusional:sleep:

[MisterD]

love you too, moped boy!!! i will show you my love should i be fortunate to meet you on a ride-- until then sweet dreams---

Save showing your "love" for somone at your own single-figure IQ level. It really is time to give up when you run out of argument and resort to threats.

[Grahameeboy]

Not another bible basher....no wonder your delusional:sleep:

Do you know me then................................:(

[GIXser]

Save showing your "love" for somone at your own single-figure IQ level. It really is time to give up when you run out of argument and resort to threats.

i just want to hug you-- xxx

[SixPackBack]

So the police should not be prosecuting in cases where they think that the juries will be too emotive? How stupid is that? A crime is a crime, and causing someone's death through negligence, is most definitely a crime.

Not emotive...logical! this man has suffered a fate worse than any court can apply, call him stupid, negligent whatever you like but charging him serves no purpose other than wasting taxpayers money.
The pigs made a mistake in charging this man...the courts proved it.

[MisterD]

i just want to hug you-- xxx

Bloody hell, now I really am scared...I may ride a scooter but I am not that way inclined!

[MisterD]

snipped stuff

We're just going round in circles now SPB. I bloody hope he is sitting at home blaming himself for the death of his daughter, becuase it was his fault. Logically (your word) the court has said "There, there, it's not your fault"...

Now I'm getting dizzy so I'm off for a lie down.

[Grahameeboy]

Bloody hell, now I really am scared...I may ride a scooter but I am not that way inclined!

Maybe he has turned into my apprentice....................

[MisterD]

Maybe he has turned into my apprentice....................

Ah, methinks it is time for a Python quote, we haven't had one for a while...

"Ooh look there's some lovely filth over here!" no on second thoughts "Run away! Run away!"

[Grahameeboy]

Ah, methinks it is time for a Python quote, we haven't had one for a while...

"Ooh look there's some lovely filth over here!" no on second thoughts "Run away! Run away!"

eeeerrrrr...anyone seen my Camel...........

[GIXser]

We're just going round in circles now SPB. I bloody hope he is sitting at home blaming himself for the death of his daughter, becuase it was his fault. Logically (your word) the court has said "There, there, it's not your fault"...

Now I'm getting dizzy so I'm off for a lie down.

what do you think, his life is a bunch of roses now, and that he doesnt feel guilty , you dont think its with him 24/7 for the rest of his life, i cant believe you are actually saying" i bloody hope he is sitting at home blaming himself"
you either have no heart or simply no idea what it would be like to cope with the loss of a sibling" i cant believe people like you,?!?!!? i agree the guy made a terrible mistake- thats what it was a "MISTAKE" that will be with him for the rest of his life, if it was me i wouldnt be able to live with the guilt i hope he makes it through the next few years-- charging him with manslaughter, would have done nothing other than, bear more guilt on his soul--

i think you need to look at "what if it was me scenario" please dont come back with " i wouldnt have made such a mistake"
dont forget it was a series of unfortunate events that made this happen-- something similar could happen to all of us--anytime

[Patrick]

Not emotive...logical! this man has suffered a fate worse than any court can apply, call him stupid, negligent whatever you like but charging him serves no purpose other than wasting taxpayers money.
The pigs made a mistake in charging this man...the courts proved it.

Yep, sure suffered alright...no doubting that SPB. But look at the bigger picture though... are you saying its OK for farmers to ignore their kids while they ride monster machines and kill themsleves?

It was avoidable, the kid was 4 and didn't know better.

Waste of money or waste of life? How many more will have to die before something is done?

The courts proved nothing other than juries can be won over on emotionalism, but we know that. He was never going to jail, we all know that too.

There was no critisism from the court over the prosecution, therefore no mistake, was there...?

[Grahameeboy]

what do you think, his life is a bunch of roses now, and that he doesnt feel guilty , you dont think its with him 24/7 for the rest of his life, i cant believe you are actually saying" i bloody hope he is sitting at home blaming himself"
you either have no heart or simply no idea what it would be like to cope with the loss of a sibling" i cant believe people like you,?!?!!? i agree the guy made a terrible mistake- thats what it was a "MISTAKE" that will be with him for the rest of his life, if it was me i wouldnt be able to live with the guilt i hope he makes it through the next few years-- charging him with manslaughter, would have done nothing other than, bear more guilt on his soul--

i think you need to look at "what if it was me scenario" please dont come back with " i wouldnt have made such a mistake"
dont forget it was a series of unfortunate events that made this happen-- something similar could happen to all of us--anytime

Hey.....taking your "what if it was me scenario".....I have already answered this one in a previous thread, which was, if I took my eyes off my 3 year old Daughter in her powered wheelchair' and she went out into the road and was killed by a car, I would happily accept the consequences because the grief of losing Natalie.....oh and I know about grief having a disabled Daughter with a short life expectancy.....would be so great that going to Court would not be an issue.

Answer please...

[GIXser]

Hey.....taking your "what if it was me scenario".....I have already answered this one in a previous thread, which was, if I took my eyes off my 3 year old Daughter in her powered wheelchair' and she went out into the road and was killed by a car, I would happily accept the consequences because the grief of losing Natalie.....oh and I know about grief having a disabled Daughter with a short life expectancy.....would be so great that going to Court would not be an issue.

Answer please...

i think its unrealistic to say, court wouldnt be an issue GB, and "happily accept the consequence" there is nothing happy about this scenario--
the difference between you and "the farmer " is that he made a terrible mistake, you havent!! ( and i believe you wont) you cant pay a higher price than the life of your daughter, so why charge him, i think there has been enough press to make people aware , a charge is not going to change things--

[Grahameeboy]

i think its unrealistic to say, court wouldnt be an issue GB, and "happily accept the consequence" there is nothing happy about this scenario--
the difference between you and "the farmer " is that he made a terrible mistake, you havent!! ( and i believe you wont) you cant pay a higher price than the life of your daughter, so why charge him, i think there has been enough press to make people aware , a charge is not going to change things--

What!!!....... What is the difference between not supervising a 3 year old in a powered wheelchair and a 4 year old in a quad.....I have a remote control for emergencies.......I walked away from my responsibilities......I would have made a terrible mistake......

You are right you cannot pay a higher price than the life of a child so going to Court will be nothing in comparison........it would in fact be a small price to.
pay.

You are right though.....I will probably not make the same mistake as Natalie's short life is too precious to endanger........in fact the remote control actually allows her more freedom if you know what mean.....

[Winston001]

Ah, methinks it is time for a Python quote, we haven't had one for a while...

"Ooh look there's some lovely filth over here!" no on second thoughts "Run away! Run away!"
......................

Who are you?

I'm Gixxer, king of the Bikers.

King of the who? Who're the Bikers?

Why........we all are. And I am Gixxer your king.

Well I didn't vote for you.

You don't vote for kings. The maiden of the pits, her arm clad in hot shimmering castrol rose up and gave to me the gudgeon pin Excaliber thereby signifying that I, Gixxer was to be your King.

Well I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an anarchosyndalclist forum.......................

[Patrick]

... is that he made a terrible mistake,...

Its always a terrible mistake, wether it is your kid or someone elses...still doesn't make it all a box of fluffies then does it.

[Ixion]

The short answer to this thread, is that the reason the jury system , with all its manifest faults, has survived for 800 odd years, is because people just don't trust the police or judges. As the Vanner case shows.

Thank God for juries, say I , because they are the only point in the whole law enforcement process where common sense has a chance to be heard.

What we *should* do is bring back the Grand Jury. It was a big mistake abolishing it.

[Psalm42]

The short answer to this thread, is that the reason the jury system , with all its manifest faults, has survived for 800 odd years, is because people just don't trust the police or judges. As the Vanner case shows.

Thank God for juries, say I , because they are the only point in the whole law enforcement process where common sense has a chance to be heard.

What we *should* do is bring back the Grand Jury. It was a big mistake abolishing it.


Here here... right on the money Ixion..
the only thing I will add to that is, the jury should have the right to choose the sentance, (not restricted by the Judges or statute, guide lines of sentance only).

[scumdog]

Not emotive...logical! this man has suffered a fate worse than any court can apply, call him stupid, negligent whatever you like but charging him serves no purpose other than wasting taxpayers money.
The pigs made a mistake in charging this man...the courts proved it.

So where do you stop with the 'let him off 'cos he's wracked with remorse and guilt stuff"??

A brother drives drunk, hits power-pole, kills other brother, - should he NOT be charged??

Or maybe only if he's drunk??

Who gets to decide?

[Ixion]

The cases are not quite the same though ?

There is a specific crime of drunken driving (and drunk driving causing death I think).

Whereas manslaughter is a much vaguer allegation. "Negligence" - not taking *enough* care.

A more direct analogy would be one brother takes a corner too fast on a wet road (but still within the speed limiit) , sober, WoF etc all OK, but misjudges the corner, slides and hits that power pole, kills his brother pillion.

He made a mistake, didn't take enough care . He was negligent. Charge him with mansalughter ? Or even dangerous driving (manifestly, it *was* dangerous, cos someone died )? Or careless driving (had he been more careful there would have been no crash)?.

Most of the dissent about the charge is because of the vague nature of manslaughter. Townies , on the whole, arguing that letting the little girl ride a quad is not just careless or stupid, but grossly negligent - enough for a manslaughter charge. Farmers, on the contrary, saying , no, people do that, he was careless , didn't keep enough of an eye on her, but he just made a mistake of judgement - like the guy on the wet road.

[scumdog]

Ixion, I was more alluding to the fact that to some "guilt and grief are enough punishment", sorry if a 'muddied the waters' with my example.

[SixPackBack]

So where do you stop with the 'let him off 'cos he's wracked with remorse and guilt stuff"??

A brother drives drunk, hits power-pole, kills other brother, - should he NOT be charged??

Or maybe only if he's drunk??

Who gets to decide?

Juries not the fricken Police...they would have know that a jury would never convict this man.
Comparing it to drink driving is hardly the same, after all the incident with the qaud could be compared to farm kids riding on the back of tractors feeding out hay, being left in a paddock with a dodgy farm animal etc.
Why is so hard to accept the cops fucked up?

[scumdog]

Juries not the fricken Police...they would have know that a jury would never convict this man.
Comparing it to drink driving is hardly the same, after all the incident with the qaud could be compared to farm kids riding on the back of tractors feeding out hay, being left in a paddock with a dodgy farm animal etc.
Why is so hard to accept the cops fucked up?

Like they did when the pig-hunter left the loaded rifle on the ground and one kiddie shot the other??

Was there an offence involving the quad? YES.

So it went to court.

(IMHO turning ANY small kid loose on a quad is risky, great when nothing goes wrong but if it does???)

[SixPackBack]

Like they did when the pig-hunter left the loaded rifle on the ground and one kiddie shot the other??

Was there an offence involving the quad? YES.

So it went to court.

(IMHO turning ANY small kid loose on a quad is risky, great when nothing goes wrong but if it does???)

I have voiced my opinion and apparently a jury agrees with me, the only thing left to say is to mirror Ixion's post...thank goodness the Police do not make these desicions because frankly they are often wrong

[scumdog]

I have voiced my opinion and apparently a jury agrees with me, the only thing left to say is to mirror Ixion's post...thank goodness the Police do not make these desicions because frankly they are often wrong

As Police are meant to be a cross section of society what chance does the jury have of getting it right? how often are THEY wrong??

Just a thought.

[Flatcap]

Thank God for juries, say I , because they are the only point in the whole law enforcement process where common sense has a chance to be heard.
.


Ixion - you have far more faith in juries than I do. These are supposed to be a jury of your peers, but in reality are most often made up of people without the wherewithall to avoid jury duty. I have had several friends serve on jurys - some on very nasty cases - where the 'less able' jurers have arrived at an opinion purely on the look of the defendant and ignored evidence. Others had attempted to spin out deliberations for as long as possible to pocket as many free feeds and $50 paydays as they can.

[Winston001]

I have voiced my opinion and apparently a jury agrees with me, the only thing left to say is to mirror Ixion's post...thank goodness the Police do not make these desicions because frankly they are often wrong

Well unfortunately for your proposition, the police obtain a conviction on about 90% of the charges they lay. Of the 10% defended, they obtain a 75% conviction rate. It is a pretty robust system.

[Psalm42]

As Police are meant to be a cross section of society what chance does the jury have of getting it right? how often are THEY wrong??

Just a thought.

12 Men/Women deciding on the facts and opinions presented vs 1 Man/Woman (police) deciding. At least with the 12 jurors you get the chance one of them will have common sense. And in all honesty of the society I see 1 in 12 having common sense may be being too generous. But if I'm close with the one in twelve idea, and your right about police being a cross section of society that would mean only 1 in 12 police have common sense.

[Psalm42]

Well unfortunately for your proposition, the police obtain a conviction on about 90% of the charges they lay. Of the 10% defended, they obtain a 75% conviction rate. It is a pretty robust system.

Hi Winston, could you confirm wether these % you quote are on all trials or are they on the jury trials, where they have laid charges. Cheers.

[Winston001]

Hi Winston, could you confirm wether these % you quote are on all trials or are they on the jury trials, where they have laid charges. Cheers.

No, I'm referring to all charges laid by police across the board. I read these statistics a while ago in a Justice Department report.

Only a very small number of charges are ever heard by a jury. The point is that judges are not dismissing many charges laid. If they were, than we'd have cause to worry about our policing. As it is, the police are catching the crims and the vast majority of the time are able to make the charges stick.

I'll see if there are any stats for jury trial results.

[Merwood]

OMFG!!11oneeleven
CALL TEH CARE POLICE : NINE WHINE WHINE

............__@@@__
.....___//_____?___\_____
..../o---CARE-POLICE----@)
.../---( @ )====+===( @ )--/

[spudchucka]

OMFG!!11oneeleven
CALL TEH CARE POLICE : NINE WHINE WHINE

............__@@@__
.....___//_____?___\_____
..../o---CARE-POLICE----@)
.../---( @ )====+===( @ )--/
I'm not about to go and check but I get the feeling that you have posted the same thing 55 times???

[spudchucka]

The short answer to this thread, is that the reason the jury system , with all its manifest faults, has survived for 800 odd years, is because people just don't trust the police or judges. As the Vanner case shows.
I don't agree. The jury system brings a human side into the legal process, thats all. The courts and police have to remove themselves from the emotive aspect and concentrate on the facts. It has nothing to do with trust.

[MisterD]

please dont come back with " i wouldnt have made such a mistake"
dont forget it was a series of unfortunate events that made this happen-- something similar could happen to all of us--anytime

A series of unfortunate events, right, a bloody great quadbike in a shit state of maintenance, with uneven tyre pressures and he lets a 4 year old ride it. I'm quite happy to say I wouldn't have done anything quite so blatantly irresponsible.

[marty]

i guess it's like if your 4 year old wanted to go swimming in a deep pool, they think they can swim, you know they can't really, but you're too busy on the phone to really worry about it too much, but you say oh - ok, then they drown, you're all upset, but you know that you should have had exercised your duty of care more rigidly, but when the cops come round you say - but it's a farm, and kids go swimming all the time, and i thought it would be ok this one time, and, and , and....

once again, a child's life has been minimised by the very people who should care for them the most. new zealanders have an inenviable reputation in the developed world for treating their own children with little respect, be it physically or mentally, and in my opinion, should harm come to a child because of the actions (or lack thereof) of their caregiver, then they should be held to account.

mr vanner should have stepped up to the mark and taken responsibility for his actions. instead, he made excuses for them, and i hope that he regrets his actions on the day his daughter died because of something that he did, and also that he regrets not accepting responsibility for them (HIS actions, not his daughters.) a 4 year old kid has ultimate unquestioning trust in their father, how hard is it to say no? unfortunately from what i've seen though, he considers that it is 'just a part of farm life'.

a Q for gixser: if a person other than the father had been in this situation, should the charges still have been laid?

[SixPackBack]

A series of unfortunate events, right, a bloody great quadbike in a shit state of maintenance, with uneven tyre pressures and he lets a 4 year old ride it. I'm quite happy to say I wouldn't have done anything quite so blatantly irresponsible.

Sometime during your life past/presant or future an irresposible act would have been commited by yourself that could have resulted in death or injury, the fact you own a motorcycle gaurantees it.

[Winston001]

Sometime during your life past/presant or future an irresposible act would have been commited by yourself that could have resulted in death or injury, the fact you own a motorcycle gaurantees it.

Absolutely. No-one here who thinks Vanner was properly charged is also saying they are saints. We've all done things which if they'd gone wrong would result in fatalities. But I suspect rarely with little children.

The point that people are making is that in similar circumstances they'd have stood up and taken the blame. Not pretended that it was an accident, Act of God, bad luck, just life (death) etc. Accepted responsibility.

But not Mr Vanner.

[GIXser]

i guess it's like if your 4 year old wanted to go swimming in a deep pool, they think they can swim, you know they can't really, but you're too busy on the phone to really worry about it too much, but you say oh - ok, then they drown, you're all upset, but you know that you should have had exercised your duty of care more rigidly, but when the cops come round you say - but it's a farm, and kids go swimming all the time, and i thought it would be ok this one time, and, and , and....

once again, a child's life has been minimised by the very people who should care for them the most. new zealanders have an inenviable reputation in the developed world for treating their own children with little respect, be it physically or mentally, and in my opinion, should harm come to a child because of the actions (or lack thereof) of their caregiver, then they should be held to account.

mr vanner should have stepped up to the mark and taken responsibility for his actions. instead, he made excuses for them, and i hope that he regrets his actions on the day his daughter died because of something that he did, and also that he regrets not accepting responsibility for them (HIS actions, not his daughters.) a 4 year old kid has ultimate unquestioning trust in their father, how hard is it to say no? unfortunately from what i've seen though, he considers that it is 'just a part of farm life'.

a Q for gixser: if a person other than the father had been in this situation, should the charges still have been laid?

Hmmm difficult one to answer for several reasons:
1) We can manipulate the scenario untill we are blue in the face /or compare it to something similar. one way or another there are several different answers( i will get to my answer shortly) for instance: what if the girl had been say 15 old enough to have a licence but not strong enough to control a quad(unless she is a weightlifter) say she was a small 15 year old)
or-- what if it was a 15 year old boy will that make a difference maybe 10 years maybe 12-- there are so many scenario's
Like i have said all along, i agree the guy fucked up big time , words cannot explain the extend of his fuck up as far im concernd.
What im saying is that the guy knows he's fucked up, and i believe, he has paid the ultimate price for his mistake, he will never have another good night sleep again "ever" does he deserve to be trialled for manslaughter, i dont believe so, should it have been made public(his mistake) yes i think so-- make people aware.
you cannot compare this to a drunk driver or anything similar, as it was a freak accident" granted this will not happen to most of us in our life time" but i will guarantee this
something of an accident will happen to a relative/friend/partner of least 1 member of this thread and they will be directly involved or be the cause of it it ,may not (and hope not) result in a death, but nevertheless they may be at fault, i guess what im implying is that we all make terrible decisions at times, and consequences will result .willingly or not--sometimes its beyond our immediate thinkin as is the case with the farmer ,it happens to all of us-i wonder what that persons view will be after the event.

my answer, if the girl had been driving the quad with her dads concent previously, then no. however if she hadnt, then yes--

Oh i forgot mr D, i should call you Mr Saint, by the sounds of it you havent, and will never "fuck up" in your life, what if you parked your silly scooter on the side of the road/footpath, and a little girl sat down beside it, a freak gust of wind blows the scooter over and hits her so hard it kills her, was it the stand" that failed ie bad maintenance" or the freak gust of wind, what do you think ,, should you be charged,??, it could happen,
Mr Vanners actions were not premeditated" however describing the above nor were yours.

[N4CR]

I'm not about to go and check but I get the feeling that you have posted the same thing 55 times???

NO IT WAS JUST POSTED IN BOTH POLICE BITCHING THREADS FOR A REASOn.

[Krusti]

Hmmm difficult one to answer for several reasons:
1) We can manipulate the scenario untill we are blue in the face /or compare it to something similar. one way or another there are several different answers( i will get to my answer shortly) for instance: what if the girl had been say 15 old enough to have a licence but not strong enough to control a quad(unless she is a weightlifter) say she was a small 15 year old)
or-- what if it was a 15 year old boy will that make a difference maybe 10 years maybe 12-- there are so many scenario's
Like i have said all along, i agree the guy fucked up big time , words cannot explain the extend of his fuck up as far im concernd.
What im saying is that the guy knows he's fucked up, and i believe, he has paid the ultimate price for his mistake, he will never have another good night sleep again "ever" does he deserve to be trialled for manslaughter, i dont believe so, should it have been made public(his mistake) yes i think so-- make people aware.
you cannot compare this to a drunk driver or anything similar, as it was a freak accident" granted this will not happen to most of us in our life time" but i will guarantee this
something of an accident will happen to a relative/friend/partner of least 1 member of this thread and they will be directly involved or be the cause of it it ,may not (and hope not) result in a death, but nevertheless they may be at fault, i guess what im implying is that we all make terrible decisions at times, and consequences will result .willingly or not--sometimes its beyond our immediate thinkin as is the case with the farmer ,it happens to all of us-i wonder what that persons view will be after the event.

my answer, if the girl had been driving the quad with her dads concent previously, then no. however if she hadnt, then yes--

Oh i forgot mr D, i should call you Mr Saint, by the sounds of it you havent, and will never "fuck up" in your life, what if you parked your silly scooter on the side of the road/footpath, and a little girl sat down beside it, a freak gust of wind blows the scooter over and hits her so hard it kills her, was it the stand" that failed ie bad maintenance" or the freak gust of wind, what do you think ,, should you be charged,??, it could happen,
Mr Vanners actions were not premeditated" however describing the above nor were yours.

Don't forget, he didn't just let the 4 yr old ride through the gate way but from what I understand he let her carry on chasing the mob of calves out of the paddock. If you have ever done this you will know it's not a simple task. Calves do not like being chased.

If he had said, "yes sweety just go through the gate while daddy is on the phone" well maybe I may allmost agree with you. Allthough it's not something I would have done.

But if he in fact got her to continue chasing the calves out of arms reach from him then yes he should be charged. RECKLESS

[scumdog]

What im saying is that the guy knows he's fucked up, and i believe, he has paid the ultimate price for his mistake, he will never have another good night sleep again "ever" does he deserve to be trialled for manslaughter, i dont believe so, should it have been made public(his mistake) yes i think so-- make people aware.


So at what point in any tragic 'fuck up' does it change from 'hes paid the ultimate price for his mistake' and he shouldn't be prosecuted to "fuck him, try him, he caused the death of some innocent person, make him pay'

Where do you draw the line?
Surely a hell of a lot of people that cause a death of an innocent person 'know they fucked up' and 'never have a good nights sleep again' and 'know they fucked up', do you believe ALL that fit this catagory should never be charged???
If not ALL then how do you decide??

[GIXser]

So at what point in any tragic 'fuck up' does it change from 'hes paid the ultimate price for his mistake' and he shouldn't be prosecuted to "fuck him, try him, he caused the death of some innocent person, make him pay'

Where do you draw the line?
Surely a hell of a lot of people that cause a death of an innocent person 'know they fucked up' and 'never have a good nights sleep again' and 'know they fucked up', do you believe ALL that fit this catagory should never be charged???
If not ALL then how do you decide??

i agree its a marginal decision , but i feel he shouldnt have been prosecuted turns out im right-- as the jury didnt think so either,,, (is this thread ever gonna end--) :laugh:

[Limb]

................................................

[Lou Girardin]

A 1 year old kid was run over and killed in their driveway by his father last
weekend.
It's clearly careless causing death.
Should the father be charged?

[Krusti]

Send me the file and I'll see.....

[GIXser]

A 1 year old kid was run over and killed in their driveway by his father last
weekend.
It's clearly careless causing death.
Should the father be charged?
No he shouldnt-- what you think Spud"?

[Psalm42]

A 1 year old kid was run over and killed in their driveway by his father last
weekend.
It's clearly careless causing death.
Should the father be charged?

Wouldnt it depend on whos care the child was in at the time, if he got charged so should the mother, all things being equal. Its not about the car, its about the care of the child.

Did the father think there was no harm in the wee one watching him go out the drive... and then the unthinkable happened. In which case the police would have to charge him just like the quad guy.

[spudchucka]

No he shouldnt-- what you think Spud"?
I think you're an idiot!


You asked.

[spudchucka]

A 1 year old kid was run over and killed in their driveway by his father last
weekend.
It's clearly careless causing death.
Should the father be charged?
Did you make decisions based on such a pausity of information when you were a tax collector?

I sure hope not.

[GIXser]

Did you make decisions based on such a pausity of information when you were a tax collector?

I sure hope not.

got a bike yet spud,, or you still sucking cock for a dollar" and saving up!!!:ride:

i hear your up to $ 487 bucks now "and all that in two weeks!!!--go you good thing---:Police:

[spudchucka]

Hey, well done. Soon you'll be as clever and witty as winja, keep up the good work.

BTW you forgot to mention how you shagged my mum last night.

Make sure you get it right next time, ok.

[GIXser]

Hey, well done. Soon you'll be as clever and witty as winja, keep up the good work.

BTW you forgot to mention how you shagged my mum last night.

Make sure you get it right next time, ok.

i didnt want to metion your mum" -- is she still working at Famous Flora's???
xxx

[spudchucka]

They didn't pay enough. Apparently she has a full time job sucking winja's dick. If you want a turn you'll have to get in line.

[GIXser]

They didn't pay enough. Apparently she has a full time job sucking winja's dick. If you want a turn you'll have to get in line.


Na,, i heard she had a sexchange-- they couldnt do anything about her stubble though, ah well i guess she will have to live with it--

Now fuck off spudcunt and leave me alone"

[spudchucka]

Now fuck off spudcunt and leave me alone"
Not a chance. You're too much of an idiot to let you go that easily.

Winja likes the feel of stubble on his sack, you'll learn to love it too.

[GIXser]

Not a chance. You're too much of an idiot to let you go that easily.

Winja likes the feel of stubble on his sack, you'll learn to love it too.

you offering????

[spudchucka]

Sorry, not today sweetie, I'm all clean shaven. Come back tomorrow and we'll see what we can do.

[spudchucka]

Mr sixpackback, you are so judgemental this evening.

Its been a worthless therad from the start. No point getting upset just because me and the stubble lover gixsee are having a ding dong.

[MisterD]

Sometime during your life past/presant or future an irresposible act would have been commited by yourself that could have resulted in death or injury, the fact you own a motorcycle gaurantees it.

There's a world of difference between taking calculated risks with your own health as an informed adult and blatant irresponsibility....

[spudchucka]

Now fuck off spudcunt and meet me at home!"
"meet me at home".

What happened to "leave me alone"?

[SixPackBack]

There's a world of difference between taking calculated risks with your own health as an informed adult and blatant irresponsibility....

Bullshit..who draws the line.

[MisterD]

Bullshit..who draws the line.

I think the line between "Stupid fuck, he was an idiot and he killed himself" and "Irresponsible bastard, he was criminally careless and it resulted in the death of someone else is pretty clear. Why can't you see it?

[SixPackBack]

I think the line between "Stupid fuck, he was an idiot and he killed himself" and "Irresponsible bastard, he was criminally careless and it resulted in the death of someone else is pretty clear. Why can't you see it?

Apparently the jury failed to see your point of veiw as well...its you that is wrong

[MisterD]

Apparently the jury failed to see your point of veiw as well...its you that is wrong

Me? Wrong? Don't be stupid.

[Grahameeboy]

A 1 year old kid was run over and killed in their driveway by his father last
weekend.
It's clearly careless causing death.
Should the father be charged?

Yes............if it was on the Highway he would so what is the difference.

[GIXser]

Yes............if it was on the Highway he would so what is the difference.
Errrg .....What??? if he was driving on the road within the speed limit indicated, and someone leapt out in front of him , or decided to drop in behind the car, and you didnt see him, you would not be charged!!
i know , it happened to a friend of mine-- not his fault,,
and as far as
Mr D(ickhead) stop dribbling and do something useful,:moon:

[MisterD]

Mr D(ickhead) stop dribbling and do something useful,:moon:

I thought trying to educate you lot was something useful, but as ever 'tis a thankless task.:finger:

[spudchucka]

Bullshit..who draws the line.
Its safe to say that when a four year old dies as a result of adult irresponsibility, that line has well and truely been crossed.

[spudchucka]

Apparently the jury failed to see your point of veiw as well...its you that is wrong
The jury felt sorry for him. It had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, right or wrong.

[spudchucka]

Errrg .....What??? if he was driving on the road within the speed limit indicated, and someone leapt out in front of him , or decided to drop in behind the car, and you didnt see him, you would not be charged!!
i know , it happened to a friend of mine-- not his fault,,
and as far as
Mr D(ickhead) stop dribbling and do something useful,:moon:
Going back to the scenario of Lou's, was the guy reversing or driving forward out the driveway? Is a driveway somewhere that small children might be playing? If so should you take more care than normal? Did the kid dart out from behind bushes or was it playing at the side of the driveway when the father began to move the car?

Too many assumptions and not enough facts, which is usual for this type of thread.

[Smorg]

The jury felt sorry for him. It had nothing to do with guilt or innocence, right or wrong.


Bullshit..............jury doesnt base its decisions on their feelings. they come to a decision based on the facts put before them thats the whole point of a jury you penis.

I bet you'd be heaps happier if you yourself got to arrest, trial and sentence everyone you arrested..............wouldnt that just make a cops day:weird:

[MisterD]

Bullshit..............jury doesnt base its decisions on their feelings. they come to a decision based on the facts put before them thats the whole point of a jury you penis.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is a piss-take right?

[Smorg]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is a piss-take right?

maybe if your a communist...........but belive it or not that is how its supposed to work

[MisterD]

maybe if your a communist...........but belive it or not that is how its supposed to work

Precisely Smorgen, the operative word is supposed. In practice, most jurors make their judgements on anything but the facts....emotion, "he looked guilty", etc etc. Judging by the posts on this thread alone very few KBers can grasp the essential facts and these are people with enough intelligence to operate a computer, if not the ability to use the english language particularly effectively.

[spudchucka]

Bullshit..............jury doesnt base its decisions on their feelings. they come to a decision based on the facts put before them thats the whole point of a jury you penis.

I bet you'd be heaps happier if you yourself got to arrest, trial and sentence everyone you arrested..............wouldnt that just make a cops day:weird:
Having been in a jury trial, in which after the jury returned a not guilty verdict, the judge in summing up stated that he had no idea why the jury did not convict and thanked the officer in charge for preparing such a water tight case and presenting his evidence with pride and distiction, the defendant, who was clearly guilty walked free; I am therfore quite comfortable responding in like fashion to your first paragraph. Bullshit!

Juries do not always get it right. That is a fact.

[spudchucka]

maybe if your a communist...........but belive it or not that is how its supposed to work
Right, supposed to work.

[Lou Girardin]

Did you make decisions based on such a pausity of information when you were a tax collector?

I sure hope not.

The question was rhetorical. I haven't said what I would do.

All I know about the situation was that the father reversed over the child. In their own driveway.

[Lou Girardin]

Yes............if it was on the Highway he would so what is the difference.

What has the highway to do with it?

[scumdog]

Bullshit..............jury doesnt base its decisions on their feelings. they come to a decision based on the facts put before them thats the whole point of a jury you penis.

I bet you'd be heaps happier if you yourself got to arrest, trial and sentence everyone you arrested..............wouldnt that just make a cops day:weird:

Crap!
Too many jury decision ARE based on feelings - that's why loser-low-lifes have a shower/shave and dress sharp - it helps jury members to 'feel' that the nice looking guy in the dock can't possibly have done 'that'. (whatever crime 'that' is.)
That's why loser-low-lifes CHOOSE jury trial.

[Hitcher]

Indeed. Jury trials are lotteries. The "justice system" has little to do with justice.

[spudchucka]

The question was rhetorical. I haven't said what I would do.

All I know about the situation was that the father reversed over the child. In their own driveway.
Well if you want a serious answer you'll need to provide more facts. The fact that he was reversing would lead me to think that he has a reasonable chance of being charged.

[spudchucka]

Crap!
Too many jury decision ARE based on feelings - that's why loser-low-lifes have a shower/shave and dress sharp - it helps jury members to 'feel' that the nice looking guy in the dock can't possibly have done 'that'. (whatever crime 'that' is.)
That's why loser-low-lifes CHOOSE jury trial.
I know of a certain high profile murderer that only read one book while on remand awaiting trial. What book? I don't know the title but the subject was how to influence people with your body language.

Juries are unbelievably fickle things and impressions count for a hell of a lot.

[GIXser]

Having been in a jury trial, in which after the jury returned a not guilty verdict, the judge in summing up stated that he had no idea why the jury did not convict and thanked the officer in charge for preparing such a water tight case and presenting his evidence with pride and distiction, the defendant, who was clearly guilty walked free; I am therfore quite comfortable responding in like fashion to your first paragraph. Bullshit!

Juries do not always get it right. That is a fact.

Having been in a jury trial,, bla bla bla, im a wanker bla bla bla, im full of shit,,, bla bla bla,,:bleh:

[enigma51]

fucking hell is this thread still going!

[spudchucka]

Having been in a jury trial,, bla bla bla, im a wanker bla bla bla, im full of shit,,, bla bla bla,,:bleh:
Call me when it comes in man size, till then, grow up or at least attempt to use wit in your insults.

[750Y]

if you listen hard you will hear the message of a little girl. it's kinda hard to hear over the insults tho.

[GIXser]

if you listen hard you will hear the message of a little girl. it's kinda hard to hear over the insults tho.
""
thats true, a good line to finish this thread" well done

[Hitcher]

Having been in a jury trial,, bla bla bla, im a wanker bla bla bla, im full of shit,,, bla bla bla
The voice of the erudite cognoscenti has spoken.

Hot bath. Bottle of gin. Razor blade...

[SixPackBack]

Indeed. Jury trials are lotteries. The "justice system" has little to do with justice.

Driving past Paremoremo recently, with construction taking place the term 'big business' popped into my head.

[Lou Girardin]

Well if you want a serious answer you'll need to provide more facts. The fact that he was reversing would lead me to think that he has a reasonable chance of being charged.

No Spud that's what a rhetorical question is.
Is running over your kid in a driveway any better than letting your kid ride a quad?

On second thoughts, this thread should be left to die in peace. It's descended to kindy level.

[marty]

Is running over your kid in a driveway any better than letting your kid ride a quad?.


umm, no.

who's to say he didn't want to kill his baby, and shaking/beating it to death was too obvious?

(taken from a related article in the Harold: )

Seventy-five children in the Auckland region were run over between January 1998 and October 2001. Six of the children died from their injuries.

what the fuck are parents doing to their kids? makes me sick to the stomach

[Grahameeboy]

Errrg .....What??? if he was driving on the road within the speed limit indicated, and someone leapt out in front of him , or decided to drop in behind the car, and you didnt see him, you would not be charged!!
i know , it happened to a friend of mine-- not his fault,,
and as far as
Mr D(ickhead) stop dribbling and do something useful,:moon:

Jumping again....."it" referred to a similar event on the highway.

[spudchucka]

Is running over your kid in a driveway any better than letting your kid ride a quad?
It depends on circumstances, which you supplied none of. You asked a stupid question aimed at drawing an answer that you wanted to hear.

[Finn]

Anyone for Pizza?

[Two Smoker]

What a waste of space on the server... And a waste of my time for reading alot of this utter bollocks...

There is no point in myself putting up my arguement as this is simply going to turn into a religious ravings thread...

The initail post ruined it by the petty name calling and blaming the "cops"... If you had put up a serious arguement with out the name calling, a constructive thread could have been created to show both sides of the story...

Also to top it off... It puts me off wanting to go on KB events, KB rides (when i can ride again) or telling you guys when and where im racing just incase i unfortunately meet one of the posters that puts up so much shit and insults...

So cut out the cop bashing, cut out the sparking of arguements, and get out there and fucking ride your bike because i fucking can't!!!

[DemonWolf]

Great post Two Smoker. well said.

[GIXser]

What a waste of space on the server... And a waste of my time for reading alot of this utter bollocks...

There is no point in myself putting up my arguement as this is simply going to turn into a religious ravings thread...

The initail post ruined it by the petty name calling and blaming the "cops"... If you had put up a serious arguement with out the name calling, a constructive thread could have been created to show both sides of the story...

Also to top it off... It puts me off wanting to go on KB events, KB rides (when i can ride again) or telling you guys when and where im racing just incase i unfortunately meet one of the posters that puts up so much shit and insults...

So cut out the cop bashing, cut out the sparking of arguements, and get out there and fucking ride your bike because i fucking can't!!!

look at the thread forum , it says Rant and Rave" if ya dont want to read it "read something else" cop bashing is also known as freedom of speech" you may hate the "iRD"!!! different strokes for different folks:" if you like i will make myself known on the next track day , where we have allready met, and you were very helpful i might add,
or on the 8 th --in the meantime i will keep pig bashing--
Cheers :yeah:

[spudchucka]

I thought you wanted to let the thread die and us pigs to f**k off and leave you alone; or was that meet you at home?:crazy:

[Patrick]

To all the PIGS watching this!!!!"" i have just finished reading the story on that Assistant Commissioner and the two ex cops, yeah sure the guys made a mistake" who doesn't!!!!,, but you pigs" wanna make a case out of it and prosecute the poor guys" DONT YOU THINK HE HAS ENOUGH OF A BURDEN ALREADY"-- Of course justice prevailed and they (the rozzers) was let off, and yeah i know most of the "cops" dont have a say in this and probably disagreed with the whole case!!, but stand up together, and voice your opion to your seniors!!! Unfortunately there are to many stories like this lately
you are losing the support of the general public rapidly, and you wonder why you get the bash every now and again??
Do the job you were employed to do, "like" FIGHT CRIME---!!!!!

Now youve read this go and write a ticket----:finger:

Thought I would save Gixxer some time... I'm sure he was about to do this.:2thumbsup

Hey Lou, thank goodness for juries... even you had them convicted before trial. Have you changed your mind too????:Oops: :blip:

And for the record? There were no winners here.

[Lou Girardin]

Thought I would save Gixxer some time... I'm sure he was about to do this.:2thumbsup

Hey Lou, thank goodness for juries... even you had them convicted before trial. Have you changed your mind too????:Oops: :blip:

And for the record? There were no winners here.

Hey Patrick,
I hope you read legislation better than you read posts. I said, "regardless of whether they did it or not, they are scumbags for what they did." (the gangbangs) It's said that the cops are the biggest gang in NZ, but they don't have to behave like gangs.
For the record, I think the verdict was correct. All parties lied to some degree.
Her story just wasn't convincing enough, but Rickards lied through his teeth as well. He can kiss promotion goodbye.

[marty]

well said lou. i hope rickards pushes a lower order desk for the rest of his days. he'd get eaten alive in parliament anyway. benson-pope is a saint compared to him. wouldn't be so bad if rickards was a cop's cop, but he's just an agenda-pushing bully

[spudchucka]

Surely its gotta be the big golden hand shake for him? He couldn't possibly take up his former position, his credibility is shot to hell.

[Hitcher]

Once the subsequent trials are held and all of the various suppression orders are lifted, we may gain a better understanding of the "truth" and who and who isn't "guilty".

[GIXser]

I thought you wanted to let the thread die and us pigs to f**k off and leave you alone; or was that meet you at home?:crazy:

hey dirty homo pig"---- fuck can you believe this turkey" now he wants to meet me at home-- your'e a fag aint ya SPudfucka"

[WINJA]

hey dirty homo pig"---- fuck can you believe this turkey" now he wants to meet me at home-- your'e a fag aint ya SPudfucka"
THAT FAG SPUD SHOULD BE KICKED OFF THE SITE , HE DONT HAVE A BIKE AND HE CONSTANTLY TALKS SHIT

[Patrick]

Hey Patrick,
I hope you read legislation better than you read posts. I said, "regardless of whether they did it or not, they are scumbags for what they did." (the gangbangs) It's said that the cops are the biggest gang in NZ, but they don't have to behave like gangs.
For the record, I think the verdict was correct. All parties lied to some degree.
Her story just wasn't convincing enough, but Rickards lied through his teeth as well. He can kiss promotion goodbye.

I read the post Lou, there was lots to take in there, some good stuff and some crap, but does it make it wrong for "consenting adults" to have group sex? That was my point, was lost on ya though...did ya read that one?

Police a "gang"...???? What "crimes" do they get up to... Ummmmm...

His job would have to be toast... Not much higher he can go though when you are Assistant Commissioner...big golden handshake coming his way for sure.

[Shadows]

Anyone for Pizza?

Meatlovers please. I feel like extra bacon too, for some reason.

[Kickaha]

HE CONSTANTLY TALKS SHIT

Well you have one thing in common then :yes:

[scumdog]

THAT FAG SPUD SHOULD BE KICKED OFF THE SITE , HE DONT HAVE A BIKE AND HE CONSTANTLY TALKS SHIT

Yep, any fags, any without a bike and any talking shit should kicked off the site.

Since winja meets two out of three of the catagories should he be kicked off for two thirds of the time??? Or twice as much?? Or given a site of his own where he can be in charge of all the other wankers this site seems to attract and whose pathetic attempts ay humour give the impression they're slagging everybody?? Or ARE they really slagging everybody but we don't notice?

The answer to these and so many other questions will no doubt be answered soon

(Cue for mental-midgets to let loose here)

[Grahameeboy]

Yep, any fags, any without a bike and any talking shit should kicked off the site.

Since winja meets two out of three of the catagories should he be kicked off for two thirds of the time??? Or twice as much?? Or given a site of his own where he can be in charge of all the other wankers this site seems to attract and whose pathetic attempts ay humour give the impression they're slagging everybody?? Or ARE they really slagging everybody but we don't notice?

The answer to these and so many other questions will no doubt be answered soon

(Cue for mental-midgets to let loose here)

Well I guess I am bound to say that we should see beyond WINJA and help him......

[Lou Girardin]

but does it make it wrong for "consenting adults" to have group sex? .

While they're married and have kids?
Aren't the enforcers of the law supposed to have higher moral standards?
Where are the limits? Is anything that's not illegal is open salther for Police Officers?
And people wonder why your standing in the public's eyes has slipped.

[idb]

but does it make it wrong for "consenting adults" to have group sex?.


While they're married and have kids?
Aren't the enforcers of the law supposed to have higher moral standards?

I'm glad I'm not a cop.
These morals and standards thingies sound like no fun at all.

[Patrick]

While they're married and have kids?
Aren't the enforcers of the law supposed to have higher moral standards?
Where are the limits? Is anything that's not illegal is open salther for Police Officers?
And people wonder why your standing in the public's eyes has slipped.
1. Musta missed summit here... happened 20 years ago... married with kids then? Or in bad marriages perhaps? Or single 20 somethings doing what some other 20 somethings get up to at times...

2. Higher standards? Come from the same society pool as everyone else...some are into group sex, some are into whippings, some are into missionary...whatever...

3. The limits are where it is not legal, I assume...as it is for everyone else perhaps?

4. Nothing wrong with my standing...I blame everyone else...depends on who you hang with I suppose...

[spudchucka]

hey dirty homo pig"---- fuck can you believe this turkey" now he wants to meet me at home-- your'e a fag aint ya SPudfucka"
Gixser, meet winja, my other biggest fan. mikey is a fan too but he's in and out of the porirua mental hospital so doesn't post as much as he used to.

[GIXser]

Gixser, meet winja, my other biggest fan. mikey is a fan too but he's in and out of the porirua mental hospital so doesn't post as much as he used to.

Yeah i share Mikey's straightjacket", i bet you wanna climb in there too you dirty "Ass bandit"

[Madness]

mikey is a fan too but he's in and out of the porirua mental hospital so doesn't post as much as he used to.

I thought that boy looked "troubled"

[spudchucka]

Yeah i share Mikey's straightjacket", i bet you wanna climb in there too you dirty "Ass bandit"
You will have to try a lot harder if you want to wind me up.

[Grahameeboy]

You will have to try a lot harder if you want to wind me up.

Yeah.....he hasn't even started trying yet eh.......wake us up when you are ready GIXer.................

[Patrick]

Yeah i share Mikey's straightjacket", i bet you wanna climb in there too you dirty "Ass bandit"

Pot calling kettle....what do you do in Mikeys jacket with Mikey in there? You seeking threesomes?

[Grahameeboy]

Pot calling kettle....what do you do in Mikeys jacket with Mikey in there? You seeking threesomes?

I doubt there is any room left with those 2 plus all that hot air.....