Man,going on scorpio’s treatment, you lot would riot against me if I told you what I thought about the incident
But you know what, I’d fkn chase someone if I saw them on my dirtbike too that they had pinched. Il leave it at that
1 Like
You’re right, saying “hope” doesn’t mean “trying”.
It doesn’t equal it, but combined with the fact he was chasing him… that’s trying.
That’s not how I read it, and I don’t see it could reasonably be read that way.
“I was hoping that he would take off into the bush and hopefully fall off there,”
I can’t see any way anyone could translate that to mean ‘my intent was to hit him with my car.’
Or to be even more generous, ‘my intent was to worry him with my car until he fell off.’
To me it’s saying almost the opposite of that.
Do you think if someone “falls off in the bush”, it’s safe?
Could be.
Depends on the bush. Probably depends on the motorbike.
I haven’t been on many motorbikes, only 25 and 50cc’s, but I can assure you I’ve fallen off them safely.
Were you being pursued by a large vehicle at the time?
I was not, but that’s not really the point.
You’re talking about the driver’s comment and whether that amounted to an admission of intent to harm.
In my opinion it categorically does not.
2 Likes
In my opinion he was hoping that a 14 year old child would be put in a life threatening situation. Which, clearly, he was. Coupled with the mans actions in pursuing him, he categorically caused him to die.
And he categorically deserves a hell of a lot more than 1000 days jail for killing a child.
1 Like
That’s a reasonable opinion to have, I guess.
I’m not going to try to put myself in the driver’s head. I don’t know or claim that I could know his intent.
I think it’s possible that his intent was as he said, that the kid would go off the road, where the car couldn’t follow, fall off because of the undergrowth, and then possibly scarper.
And what you’ve said is also possible.
But I don’t think the statement supports your opinion.
1 Like
What is really interesting about what has gone on in this thread over the past few days is that in my opinion it represents perfectly what is happening in the world today particularly in regards to media communication and politics.
Facts and the truth no longer matter. If people don’t agree with facts, its fake news. It doesn’t matter how many times people are presented with the truth, if they don’t want to believe it nothing will convince them that they are basing their opinion on nothing.
And yet as Essendon supporters that is exactly what has been happening to us for the past four years. People won’t listen to what really happened, don’t want to know the facts, and if they are presented with proof, just don’t believe it.
People will extrapolate from selected facts, data and testimony and create their own version of the truth that in some cases bears no resemblance to what occurred. To say nothing of the use of inflammatory language.
Just reading a lot of the stuff going on with Trump, Russia, money laundering etc, it has made me realise that people don’t want to know the details. They are not interested in getting all the information and trying to form a balanced informed opinion. They are only interested in picking out the detail that suits their preconceived narrative. It is the true manifestation of the echo chamber where people only listen to those who confirm their view. And if people speak out against them they are denigrated. The AFL does it as well. It’s fascinating to watch.
And what has been written here over the last few days makes me realise that people are doing exactly the same with this.
The man in this court case has variously been described as:
- he was hoping that a 14 year old child would be put in a life threatening situation.
- his intent was to cause an accident…
- Deliberate action designed to cause harm.
- is a child killer
- we know he wanted to run him off the road into the bush
- we know he approached at a speed that would go straight over the kid.
- very close to easing a knife in and not meaning to hit the heart.
- child was killed by someone who had no business being where he was,
- being reckless and irresponsible and thinking he was Batman in a 4wd trying to Fight Crime, after downing a sixpack.
- The guy chased the kid down like a dog
- It was like Spielberg’s Duel.
- Once the bloke started chasing the kid there was only one way it could possibly end
- The man chose to go there, chase the child and drive dangerously and too close and couldn’t, maybe didn’t, avoid running him over.
- I hope that when he is released, his new house is burned down as well.
- killing a child with deliberate actions
- redneck driving a 4wd
A lot of what has been said here is just not supported by the evidence in the public domain. Yet it is clearly what some people on here consider to be the truth and what happened.
We are clearly in a brave new world where it is basically a free for all in regard to facts. As a lover of history I can only imagine what people will think looking back in a century.
In a time when we have so much information at our finger tips it seems people either can’t or won’t evaluate information that might cause them to have to challenge themselves regarding their own opinions.
When did changing your mind about something become such a problem? It seems that people think that they must have fixed opinions on everything.
Its a real shame because what we need more of in the world today, and particularly in our political landscape is people that are prepared to get more information, re-evaluate what they know and occasionally change their minds.
5 Likes
The thing I’ve been thinking while you guys have had your back & forth, is that there were no witnesses, except a kid that died, and the guy facing Jail.
How does anyone know what the truth is at that point,… let alone when everything else you’ve used for info, is AFAICT what’s been reported in the Murdoch press!
The main point I think, is that there seems to have been a bit of Cowboy vigilante justice at play, and even encouraged by the Police there, and that should never be OK.
The guy saw what “he thought” was his bike, he should have at that point maybe followed slowly, but even then, only if he couldn’t yet identify the kid to the Cops.
At which point, he should have gone to them.
Not to mention every man and his dog has a video camera in his pocket.
A little bit of footage to identify “suspected” perpetrator, and bike,… turn the fk around & let the Tax payer funded officers of the law do what we pay them for.
Who did he think he was? “Walker - Outback Ranger”?
Great post
1 Like
Forensic evidence has come a long way since the Chamberlain case, but is not always conclusive and is contestible .
I imagine that there would have been a lot of forensic evidence arising from the coronial inquiry. The Crown prosecutor seemingly thought that evidence was strong enough to pursue a manslaughter charge. At least he got convicted and was given a custodial sentence.
Brave new world when it comes to facts?
Your list contains several items that are clearly and plainly supported by direct quotes from the driver! It contains several items that were clearly and plainly supported by the judgement of the court. Yet somehow you use these statements as evidence of … other people not acquainting themselves with the facts? If you want to bewail the ability of people to assimilate facts in contradiction to their worldview, I suggest you begin by looking in your own back yard.
(The list also contains several items which are obvious metaphor or analogy, and at least one clearly expressed personal opinion that had nothing to do with the incident itself at all. If the prevailing level of discourse is such that these simple rhetorical techniques are leaped on as evidence one’s debate opponents are unbalanced or irrational or incapable of evaluating information … well, we’re in a bit of trouble, frankly.)
Could not have put it better myself, except to summarise it as “complains about lack of facts, lists abundant facts as lies”.
It’s a terrible post, dripping with a lack of self awareness.
I’ll address only one from the list " he’s a child killer": What else do you call something ne who kills a child?
And it is offensive in the extreme to suggest that this is just a tragedy that has befallen “everyone”.
He caused it, he killed a 14 year old boy. He deserves no sympathy, no understanding and I hope he suffers for his actions horribly for the remainder of his ■■■■ life.
Whatever way you look at it, it’s just sad. Real sad. No one deserved to die over a fkn motorbike
8 Likes
Zactly.
It’s how the left behave. When it comes to something vaguely racial each needs to act more outraged than the other.
Apparently burning down someone’s house is a measured and reasonable response.
For what it’s worth I think the guy should have got a longer sentence. I’d doubt it’s manslaughter though.
I can’t imagine looking at life through a left/right paradigm.
Must be…restrictive.
3 Likes