Hammer Attacker's Sentence Aborted

**MacD** · 29th October 2005, 12:44

Originally Posted by yungatart

I thought the guy had been convicted already and was back in court for sentencing only..did I get it wrong again?

No, you didn't get it wrong. The guy actually plead guilty, and now the task of the judge is to pass sentence. Whether you like it or not the defence lawyer is only doing what you'd expect a defence lawyer to do. Introducing mitigating circumstances in order to minimise his client's sentence, just like any rider on this site would expect their lawyer to do if they were up on a dangerous driving charge for example.

If people don't like defence lawyers I could suggest any number of countries where they effectively don't exist.

**Patrick** · 29th October 2005, 12:59

Originally Posted by MacD

No, you didn't get it wrong. The guy actually plead guilty, and now the task of the judge is to pass sentence. Whether you like it or not the defence lawyer is only doing what you'd expect a defence lawyer to do. Introducing mitigating circumstances in order to minimise his client's sentence, just like any rider on this site would expect their lawyer to do if they were up on a dangerous driving charge for example.

If people don't like defence lawyers I could suggest any number of countries where they effectively don't exist.

NAH... he will be legal aid... on the gravy train...gets taxpayer $$$ for each appearance he makes for this arsewipe. Stretch it out for a few more appearances = more $$$

**MacD** · 29th October 2005, 14:38

Originally Posted by Patrick

NAH... he will be legal aid... on the gravy train...gets taxpayer $$$ for each appearance he makes for this arsewipe. Stretch it out for a few more appearances = more $$$

And did you know that Crown prosecution lawyers are getting paid at about 1.5x the rate of the legal aid defence lawyers. Even better gravy train for them...

**TwoSeven** · 29th October 2005, 14:47

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

I did and failed to see how this witness, who was only going to say that the driver had a history of sub standard driving, has any effect on the brutal assualt captured on camera.

Why was the judge forced to suspend the case? That is my question, she had enough evidence to convict the looser there and then, and now the courts going to drag the victim through more shit!? Not on I say.

The defendant claimed they were provoked. Evidence was introduced to suggest (more than reasonably) that the driver provoked the chap with the hammer. That changes what the original case was about - from someone being violently attacked for no reason), to someone trying to make someone attack them for a reason (if bizare).

I think the hammer dude is still being prosecuted (or sentenced). I'd be interested to see if charges are brought against the driver or not.

**sAsLEX** · 29th October 2005, 15:11

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

The defendant claimed they were provoked. Evidence was introduced to suggest (more than reasonably) that the driver provoked the chap with the hammer. That changes what the original case was about - from someone being violently attacked for no reason), to someone trying to make someone attack them for a reason (if bizare).

I think the hammer dude is still being prosecuted (or sentenced). I'd be interested to see if charges are brought against the driver or not.

see what your saying but that is heading towards saying that if someone cuts you off its alright to grab a 2x4 and go beat them to a pulp. Provoked or not its then end result that he should be being charged with.

**MacD** · 29th October 2005, 15:42

Originally Posted by sAsLEX

see what your saying but that is heading towards saying that if someone cuts you off its alright to grab a 2x4 and go beat them to a pulp. Provoked or not its then end result that he should be being charged with.

He's been charged and plead guilty! The issue is about the sentence now...

**Pathos** · 29th October 2005, 22:30

If one was to knock him off and borrow his laywer....

**spudchucka** · 30th October 2005, 05:58

Originally Posted by TwoSeven

If anyone actually reads the news article, you'll find that the defense lawyer tried to turn the court case into an attack on the truck driver and tried to introduce a new witness and evidence. The judge was forced to suspend the court case because of it.

Its just a defence ploy to ensure his "client" doesn't spend Xmas in jail. Pathetic!

**Dafe** · 30th October 2005, 07:00

What about the Prisoner that died riding his Quad bike a week ago?
Yep, Prisoners in the Waikato region are out there Quad Biking.
But as well as that,
Did you know that cellphones are Mandatory in this prison. Along with their internet connections are supplied Pornographic Literature.
Thats the prison system we pay for!

**avgas** · 30th October 2005, 07:41

Right fairs fair, anyone got a claw hammer and this guys add? Sick of the BS in NZ - Makes me fear for my life, having people out there that can beat the shit out of somedude with a hammer....walking around and still getting the benefit.
+ that truckdriver actually wants to get back to work, id rather have him in NZ then some prick that is full of shit.
If he was such a shit driver - the cops would pull his license, not make him unable to walk.

**Ghost Lemur** · 30th October 2005, 10:27

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Its just a defence ploy to ensure his "client" doesn't spend Xmas in jail. Pathetic!

Well that didn't work as he's been remanded in custody til January.

As for the comments here, I can't help but be reminded of the number of wingmirror/door kickers we have here. And of the pat on the backs they get when such threads come up.

Not saying it's in the same league as bashing a guy with a hammer, but it's still "road rage", it's still illegal (willful damage?). It has no possitives, potentially increases anti-biker sentiment.

I was abhorred to see the crap this losers lawyer pulled. And was just glad he'll be spending xmas with bubba. It doesn't matter how bad someone's driving is. Taking the law into you own hands is illegal. This fucker could have just as easily called *555 (or whatever it is), or taken down his details and laid a complaint with his employer.

My $0.02

**TLDV8** · 30th October 2005, 10:35

Originally Posted by Ghost Lemur

This fucker could have just as easily called *555 (or whatever it is), or taken down his details and laid a complaint with his employer.

My $0.02

That might be how it is in Christchurch... the weapon of choice in South Auckland is the claw hammer,either that or most Pacific Islander's are Chippies.... Cut a PI off,they will want to bash you,they cut you off and you give them the finger,they will want to bash you... Keyword, i want to bash you anyway,that is not a slur but just how it is in most cases.... Serve the time then deportation.

**Macktheknife** · 30th October 2005, 10:50

Originally Posted by Zed

What better reason to instigate capital punishment, even if it's just a 'once off' for this loser! Don't you know he'll do it again...

Do you mean corporal punishment dude?
Or then again... maybe you do mean kill him for the hammer attack! lol At least that would certainly be a 'once off'! lol
Still I understand why we have to debate the previous action angle, I mean if someone has been putting up with repeated incidents of being cutoff by the same truckie 3-4 times a day for 10 years maybe a hammer attack is justified........
Tui anyone?

**Beemer** · 30th October 2005, 11:00

As far as I can see it, the guy with the hammer had no history with the truck driver, so he had no reason to believe that he wasn't a decent, law abiding driver. Even if the truckie's driving record wasn't squeaky clean, it is no reason to be pulled from the truck and beaten with a hammer - he's lucky he wasn't killed. The fact of the matter is, everyone does dumb shit at times - pulling out and not seeing a vehicle, etc., so even if the truckie had done something to upset the other guy, the response was not appropriate. If he had blasted on the horn or followed the guy and told him what a tosser he was when he stopped, fine, but to drag him from the truck and beat the crap out of him is way beyond what a reasonable person would do.

I was under the impression that when you appeared in court they were not allowed to bring in evidence of prior crimes in case it tainted the jury - if that is true for the defendent, why should it be any different for the victim? Even if he was a shocking driver, the truckie is not on trial here, the guy with the hammer is! There aren't any mitigating factors as far as I can see, unless this particular truckie had done this kind of thing to him before.