A LEttrr to KB

[James Deuce]

With all respect this seems to me to be more than just "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced ".

We've all been those things at some stage.

But in this case the driver

(a) Ran through a red light. Deliberately. I do not believe that you could get a restricted license without knowing that red means stop. So that bit wasn't just incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced . It was wilful negligence.

(b) She hit the car in front and that in turn hit the motorcyclist. She then continued driving (after hitting the Falcon) and ran over the motorcyclist. What sort of a person has a major impact with another vehicle and DOESN"T STOP ? So that wasn't just incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced . That was gross disdain for any injury she might have done.

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.

Saying it's just because of "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced " is a cop-out.

She was wilfully negligent, and is also apparently completely remorseless.

Even someone who has never driven a vehicle in their life knows stop on red, and would stop after hitting someone .

If it were me, yes, I'd hang her. Society doesn't need people like that. And , yep, I'd pull the lever.

If you're going to quote me please do it in context.

Cheers

Jim

[madboy]

The point sAsLEX made re: boyracer - hell yeah they'd fry him/her! And if the Falcon that got hit had been a lowered Integra with chromies, they probably woulda found that poor innocent person partially liable too.

As regards that "not stopping" after smacking the Falcon - it's a tough call to make the assumption that she deliberating tried to run him over. Hey, i'm not defending her here, what I'm saying is that we all have different panic reflexes, which is what her actions during the crash would have been. She might have hit the gas instead of the brake, coulda thought oh shit, I'm outta here... who knows?

Either way, I'm still voting manslaughter!

[FROSTY:Me]

Maybee we need to introduce vehicular manslaughter into our legal system

[speedpro]

The Police themselves have said that they don't believe that the excessive speed contributed to the accident. "Could have beens" are a bit pointless, but if he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been at a point in time and space to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver.

And if he'd been going even faster he wouldn't have been in a position to get nailed either. There is only one victim here and only one criminal.

I feel pretty strongly about this and regards your comment "if he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been at a point in time and space to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver" - you can fuck off.

[Skyryder]

Just another example of one law for immigrants and another for the natives. Even if she is found guilty the judge will most likely giver her the cash payment option. Just bloody WRONG.

Skyryder

[soundbeltfarm]

Just another example of one law for immigrants and another for the natives. Even if she is found guilty the judge will most likely giver her the cash payment option. Just bloody WRONG.

Skyryder

hearing ya there mate.
fucken asians
i shouldn't say that probably, thers plenty of good ones.
and a few are my personal friends and they see where we coming from.
but thats the first thing that comes to mind .
they can do whatever they want and get a slap on the wrist and pay some money.
most of their driving is shithouse.
thats arrogance saying " im not responsible"
we should shoot the bitch then say it wasn't us your honour the gun was the one that got her i just pulled the trigger.

[spudchucka]

I guess it's not serious because she wasn't speeding.

You know better Lou. Care to explain to everyone what is required before laying a manslaughter charge in these circumstances?

[spudchucka]

DON"T EVEN FUCKEN START ME ON OUR ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH "" PUNISHMENTS "" WE GIVE PEOPLE

The maximum penalty for reckless driving causing death is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000.

Blame the Courts and the soft Judges.

[spudchucka]

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.

Me too. But go and study the law and tell me whether manslaughter could be laid against this person.

[Ixion]

Me too. But go and study the law and tell me whether manslaughter could be laid against this person.

Crimes Act 1961

160.Culpable homicide—

(1)Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable.
(2)Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person—
(a)By an unlawful act; or
(b)By an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty; or
(c)By both combined; or
(d)By causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his death; or
(e)By wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.
(3)Except as provided in section 178 of this Act, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter

According to the statements we have (admittedly, her version may be different) she deliberately failed to stop at a red light. Not just a roaring through at the tail end of the amber but a deliberate ignore the light. An unlawful act.Then after hitting another vehicle she failed to stop. And the failure must have been significant, because it was not originally her vehicle that knocked the biker off , but the one in front of her. So she had to overtake orpass that vehicle to run the biker over. Failure to perform a legal duty.

And under the old common law definition of homicide due to reckless and wilful negligence, she was certaily reckless, and negligent, and it was wilful.

Once again, caution required because we have only one side of the story. Not saying that it is wrong, but we've not heard her explanation.

On the facts we have this sounds more that the "usual" intersection smash.


And I don't agree that inexperience or training have anything to do with it. I asked my 80 year old mother in law who's never driven in her life. Can't get much more inexperienced or untrained. She knew you stop at a red light and stop if you hit something.

It's not murder because there was no intent aforethought, so if it was culpable it was manslaughter.IMHO.

I suspect that the prosecution figure she's young , tearful, will get sympathy from judge and jury, and decided to go with a charge they knew they could win. And killing a biker doesn't rank the same as killing an old lady.

Want to bet that if it had been a boy racer who killed an old lady it would have been manslaughter ?

[FEINT]

She has her restricted license which means that she probably started to drive / learn to drive in NZ. She has obviously passed her Restricted driving test which means she knows the road rules. If she chose to go through that red light then she did it on her own account and not on the rest of the asian drivers out there. (There are quite a few pretty bad ones around)

I think she should be charged. What she did was stupid and reckless. My thoughts are with the family and his friends. I hope the courts will deliver justice.

Ride safe out there.

[spudchucka]

Crimes Act 1961

160.Culpable homicide—

(1)Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable.
(2)Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person—
(a)By an unlawful act; or
(b)By an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty; or
(c)By both combined; or
(d)By causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his death; or
(e)By wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.
(3)Except as provided in section 178 of this Act, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter

According to the statements we have (admittedly, her version may be different) she deliberately failed to stop at a red light. Not just a roaring through at the tail end of the amber but a deliberate ignore the light. An unlawful act.Then after hitting another vehicle she failed to stop. And the failure must have been significant, because it was not originally her vehicle that knocked the biker off , but the one in front of her. So she had to overtake orpass that vehicle to run the biker over. Failure to perform a legal duty.

And under the old common law definition of homicide due to reckless and wilful negligence, she was certaily reckless, and negligent, and it was wilful.

Once again, caution required because we have only one side of the story. Not saying that it is wrong, but we've not heard her explanation.

On the facts we have this sounds more that the "usual" intersection smash.


And I don't agree that inexperience or training have anything to do with it. I asked my 80 year old mother in law who's never driven in her life. Can't get much more inexperienced or untrained. She knew you stop at a red light and stop if you hit something.

It's not murder because there was no intent aforethought, so if it was culpable it was manslaughter.IMHO.

I suspect that the prosecution figure she's young , tearful, will get sympathy from judge and jury, and decided to go with a charge they knew they could win. And killing a biker doesn't rank the same as killing an old lady.

Want to bet that if it had been a boy racer who killed an old lady it would have been manslaughter ?

If it is so clearly manslaughter then why do we have offences like dangerous driving, careless driving and reckless driving causing death or injury?

[Waylander]

Call it what you will, the punnishment should be more sever when someone does period. As in mandatory jail time more than a few months.

[spudchucka]

Call it what you will, the punnishment should be more sever when someone does period. As in mandatory jail time more than a few months.

Hey, I agree. I'm just trying to get people to think about what they are saying on this topic. Its too easy to say "charge the fucker with Blah Blah Blah" without even knowing whether, in the circumstances, the person could be charged with that offence.

[Jeremy]

Now I'm certainly not a lawyer (nor training to become one, a BSc(CompSci) is what I want). But I always thought that you could be charged with the sum of all the crimes commited.

So lets see:

Running through a red light. 25 demerit points? plus a fine
Breaching terms of license. 25 demerit points. plus $400 fine. Obviously breaking the road rules is breaching your license terms.
Unsafe driving. (More demerit points?) plus fine.
Hitting another a vehicle (does this come under willfull damage of another's property?), fine + replacement costs. Normally your insurance would cover you but as I've noticed if you look in the fine print usually if you commit a crime then they don't have to cover you if they don't want to.
Fleeing from a crime scene (jail time + fine?)
Not stopping at an accident (fine + demerit points?)
Reckless driving causing death. (fine + demerit points + jail time)

Now there is one thing I remember from legal studies in 6th form, is that Judges are are completely free to make up new laws on the spot. So there's nothing to stop the judge adding more to the sentence because you should never be in a position where you are unable to brake and stop an accident.