Just remember

[Ocean1]

I'm worried.

Seems there's no longer any such thing as an accident. No really, my OSH consultant assures me so, as does my HR mgr. And the safety officer. And quite a few other people who's work, it seems, is to diligently impede any constructive activity I attempt.

Not suggesting the girls death wasn't avoidable and tragic, or that the kid wasn't a complete dick. But that's what 18 year olds do, and if you give almost any one of 'em a new skyline they'll behave exactly that way. You don't have to accept that, you could make laws to prevent it, but you won't enforce them, and anyway it's tantamount to legislating against natural human behaviour.

We're not, as a species, particularly risk averse. Somewhat counter-intuitively it ain't necessarily a strong survival trait, so you're unlikely to ever change that. There will always be a bunch of less than perfectly safe behaviour, unless… well, if you ever do manage to change that just give me a heads up eh? Wouldn't want to miss the day the species diverges from what I know as human.

And then there’s a growing necessity to hold someone accountable for everything. Responsible is good, I just sorta cringe a bit when "responsible" and "accountable" drift into "blame". Ugly. But maybe that’s natural human behaviour too…

FTR, IMHO:
the hammer = murder
the fridge = accident
the skyline = manslaughter

[James Deuce]

What about Lipene Sila, who rammed his car into a group of partygoers, killing two?

He was convicted of murder, and got a non-parole period of 17 years.

That is precisely how he would have been treated if he'd walloped someone with a hammer and killed them.

What about Garth Porter, who went out hunting, thought his daughter's boyfriend was a deer, and shot and killed him?

He was convicted of careless use of a firearm causing death, and sentenced to five months home detention and 250 hours community service.

Was that a stiffer penalty than he would have received if he'd 'accidentally' hit the boy with a car and killed him? I think not.

I don't find your argument very compelling...



You haven't shown any instances of this failing to be done, though. You've just shown that the NZ justice system tends to hand out light sentences for crimes where intent was lacking.

Lipene Sila is one of the few cases where the Police had enough substantial evidence to charge the driver with murder.

Garth Porter and Mathew Tycehurst are two cases where any reasonable country would construct an argument for banning firearms ownership. I personally don't believe that anyone in NZ "needs" to own a personal weapon. There are aspects of our society that "accept" accidents as inevitable and "Justice" as pointless, especially where an instrument capable of causing death is involved, if it was used for recreational pursuits. I'm not talking about the sentence, except to illustrate the fact that for all intents and purposes, once you hit the road, you as an individual are worthless and are completely at the mercy of anyone lacking in common sense.

My "argument" is that it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone with a vehicle in NZ. It is literally socially acceptable. It is regarded as an accident. For vehicular manslaughter, intent is not the point being discussed. Were you in control of the vehicle that killed someone. Yes. Case closed.

[jrandom]

Garth Porter and Mathew Tycehurst are two cases where any reasonable country would construct an argument for banning firearms ownership.

I can name several members of this forum who constitute cases where any 'reasonable' country would construct an argument for banning motorcycle ownership. I'm sure you could too.

I personally don't believe that anyone in NZ "needs" to own a personal weapon.

Neither do they 'need' to own a motorcycle, or a Skyline, for that matter.

Or a jetski.

Or a snowboard.

Or power tools, if they're not a qualified tradesperson.

For that matter, more people die in boating 'accidents' while fishing than die in hunting 'accidents' due to misuse of firearms.

You catch my drift, I'm sure. Pretty much anything can be lethal when misused.

We can do the 'appropriate firearms legislation' topic if you want, but it feels like a bit of a red herring here. The real question is how our legal system treats situations where people kill others due to carelessness.

My "argument" is that it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone with a vehicle in NZ. It is literally socially acceptable. It is regarded as an accident. For vehicular manslaughter, intent is not point being discussed. Where you in control of the vehicle that killed someone. Yes. Case closed.

I think your argument is flawed inasmuch as you pick out the vehicle as the salient factor. I would say that killing someone without the intent to do so, regardless of the inevitable fuckwittery involved, does not result in the same condemnation in our society as killing someone with the intent to do so does.

Once again, I say, either show specific examples where comparable crimes were given mismatched sentences with the only difference being the use of a vehicle or not, or abandon that topic and consider the real question of whether our justice system treats crimes of carelessness with sufficient severity.

And, socially acceptable to kill people with vehicles? WTF? Are you actually personally acquainted with people who think it's acceptable, or is this just something you've gleaned from the ever-reliable media?

[EJK]

Whah what a complete bullshit....

[Ixion]

I..

Neither do they 'need' to own a motorcycle, or a Skyline, for that matter.

..
Or power tools, if they're not a qualified tradesperson.

..

OI. What about us unqualified bodgers ? I spent the whole weekend (well some it it, and it classes as the whole weekend for little list purposes) sawing and drilling and bashing. I wouldn't want to have to do that without power tools. . We NEED power tools, it takes 10 times as long to fuck things up without them

(BTW , did you know that 'bodger' was originally a well respected trade. One who produced furniture in situ (ie in the forest) using a whip lathe. I thought you'd want to know that)

[pzkpfw]

I was driving 'round the corner, hit some Diesel some bugger spilled, slid across the centre line and had a head-on killing someone.

I was driving 'round the corner, there were no signs and I thought I wasn't going too fast, but I mis-judged - slid across the centre line and had a head-on killing someone.

I was driving 'round the corner, there was a 65 km/hr sign, but I thought 80 k would be OK - done it before fine, but I slid across the centre line and had a head-on killing someone.

I was driving 'round the corner, had had a few after work, thought I was fine - didn't realise my speed was so high and I slid across the centre line and had a head-on killing someone.

I was driving 'round the corner, just had to get past this old lady in a Prius who'd been holding me back; I was across the centre line and had a head-on killing someone.

I was driving 'round the corner, saw this Prius, which I hate, so had a head-on with it, killing someone.



Not even the cop cars are black and white, any more.

I think we all agree that crimes have been committed, but where the lines are drawn is the question.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth does not take into account intent.