10mfhalc...
10mfhalc...
Ah, isn't it funny how the "great brotherhood of motorcyclists" actually doesn't apply when it suits. How many times have there been "tribute" threads to riders who we don't even know, but they're "still our brother".
Any bike fatality is tragic, but it always makes me bemused by the brotherhood mentality that springs up over their RIP threads. While we don't necessarily have to personally know the person involved, it does kind of make a bit of a mockery of concepts of "we're all brothers together" (because we ride motorbikes).
p.s. that is not aimed at you, btw, it is a general observation on a trend which seems to pop up here from time to time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZnztwiWZo4
Humans are like Ogres, we have many levels. Whilst we might espouse brotherhood over a crash, at that one limited level, it doesn't mean we feel the same across all levels.
we would have nothing to argue about and then this site would be very boring.
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but we had a recent RIP thread where everyone who posted was careful to implicitly clarify that they knew the deceased and had the moral authority to pay their respects by writing about him in public.
I think there were maybe one or two die-hard grief vampires who just had to come in with one of those facepalmingly-awful "I KNOW I NEVER MET YOU BUT RIDE FOREVER IN HEAVEN" type posts, but they were no more than a small embarrassment.
I believe the KB consciousness might be shifting in terms of what's considered appropriate when someone dies. This would be a good thing.
kiwibiker is full of love, an disrespect.
- mikey
Im thinking its a waste of time posting any form of RIP for someone who isn;t dead.
Amazing coincidence innit. raro is the one country in the world that uses kiwi money.Although its a small country theres still places a person could disapear to and live fairly cheaply. Denied entry in the main port due to lack of a passport then the boat is found drifting just offshore -close by a nice easy channel to swim to shore.
keep in mind the guy navigated an old concrete boat solo from NZ to raro. Thats no mean feat in itself so clearly he aint stupid.
To see a life newly created.To watch it grow and prosper. Isn't that the greatest gift a human being can be given?
I disagree! I've sat as a witness to a case where there was NO evidence other than she said/he said.
It was a complete farce.
The 'woman' had her entire family sitting AGAINST her in court, along with a lot of witnesses to the times she claimed things occurred that said there was no way it could have happened without someone seeing.
They even stated that items she mentioned were not available at the times she said.
One event supposedly happened when her and he were in different islands. He was working in the South Island proved by workplace) and she was in Palmerston North with her sister.
Her own father didnt believe her and testified for the gentlemen concerned.
Her side of the court had her and two others.
His side had about 100 people including her sisters, brothers and father.
Her own fiance refused to support her in court as he was convinced she was in the wrong and he called and apologised to the accused.
Her sister paid him a lot of money to apologise for her sister putting him through it all as he went to jail for it and saw 3 years inside.
Her family paid a large amount of his legal fees....
The problem being is that once she became a victim (by telling lies) she made it impossible to fight.
As you are not allowed to bring up anything bad in the victims history.
So the jury weren't allowed to hear how she was kicked out of 5 family homes including her parents before she turned 16. She was expelled from no less than 8 high schools in 4 cities.
She blamed this on the accused, who she said didn't go near her until she was 18 - ummm how could someone she hadn't met yet, cause issues with her before she met him *facepalm*
She was a manic depressant who frequently was caught out fabricating incredibly detailed stories of things that never happened and was off her meds at the time of the accusations. Her family were used to it, however she'd never gone that far with one before.
If the jury were allowed to know some of this stuff, I doubt they could have convicted.
The system protects the victim or perceived victim, even when they invented everything!
~ Proud Mummy to Alyssa, Rogue & Cole ~
....... www.bysharyn.com .......
Web Designer | Photographer | Nail Technician
Maybe and it is the case with what you've seen. However in my case I was a victim who was victimised by the Police in a bad bad way cause they didn't believe me. Though I was in Rotorua in the late 80's early 90's so that could be why.
Nowdays the Police would not name his name and name the offences if they did not have solid evidence, as in enough to convict him.
"Some people are like clouds, once they fuck off, it's a great day!"
Bullshit. Perhaps in this single case that you have experience of but I am in touch with dozens of REAL victims and sexual abuse centre staff who'd disagree vehemently with your take on the 'system' - including myself.
In my case, they were convinced by my child's evidential interview and the information i supplied that the abuse had happened yet. Because he's autistic they told us we wouldn't win in court cos he can't communicate properly and he wouldn't be able to stand up to cross examination. FFS he was 7!!!!e were just lucky to get justice because 'poppa' confessed 'some of it' to them directly...without that he'd have gotten off scot free.
I won't go into my other thoughts on your story as you well know you and I have a HUGE difference of opinions on this particular topic and I don't want to argue with or be rude to you over this.
Peace
I'm not sure what you think my 'take' is, but I don't think the system changes depending on who is being charged... I mean clearly they take all 'victims' as being the ones telling the truth and they don't assume they are making up stories.
If a 'victim' make an accusation, then the rules apply to all victims. You are not allowed to bring into the courtroom any information pertaining to the victims past history, mental state or physical state.
That is the same no matter whether the victim is telling the truth OR telling lies.
Your issue with the system is QUITE different to mine as mine is that if a 'victim' isn't telling the truth, then there is no feasible way to prove otherwise.
Which is a totally different situation to yours, where as you just stated, the evidential interview was with a child who they were unsure of because of his autism.
They must have had uncertainties about whether he would make a reliable witness on the stand, which is heartbreaking for your family, but not uncommon and I do know a few people who have been told similar things about kids who aren't even autistic just unreliable witnesses.
The situation I was in, was that the 'victim' made a statement that was completely sane sounding, was clear, concise, presented by an adult who made a reasonably reliable looking claim which by all appearances had no hint of it all being made up as she presented so well.
Her mental illness, meant that she to a degree had actually convinced herself it was all true, so she seemed a reliable witness and the Police decided that her word alone was enough evidence to go to trial.
TOTALLY different kettle of fish to your experience.
~ Proud Mummy to Alyssa, Rogue & Cole ~
....... www.bysharyn.com .......
Web Designer | Photographer | Nail Technician
The system can get it badly wrong though - the Christchurch Civic Creche case bears testimony to how hysteria can over-ride common sense.
Conviction on the basis of victim testimony, without any corroborating evidence, makes a mockery of our justice system. Guilty until proved innocent.
Can I believe the magic of your size... (The Shirelles)
See now this why I miss my laptop. Currently I'm limited to typing stuff out on a fricken iPod, which is painfully slow and annoying for this touch typist who can type almost as quickly as I can formulate my thoughts...and I end up not finishing my posts off or saying everything I'm trying to get across.
My situation is not somewhat different but is an example of though they believed my son they were gearing up initially to do nothing as they believed 'their system' wouldn't be able to get him any justice...because they knew a defense lawyer would attack the 'autism angle'
In terms of other victims I'm aware of they were treated as if they were lying and had to jump through many hoops to be taken seriously and to get any assistance/recognition. Heck the damn parole board admitted to me that offenders have more rights and are better protected than victims...probably on account of false accusations made by others.
'Using the autism' to discredit my sons story...that's certainly a 'mental/physical state' - perhaps the rules have changed?
Cant type more too bloody frustrating on this piece of shit technology - I miss my proper keyboard and decent sized screen!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks