Car jacker run over

[fastapasta]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...3-2761,00.html

I dont understand. Did he get out of the passenger side and try to walk around the back to the driver?

[|||]

pity he survived

[Kryton]

id say shes knocked him over while she was trying to leave.

Police say the teenager got out of the vehicle in a cul-de-sac in Lockridge where he produced a knife and demanded the woman's mobile telephone and purse.

[Fev]

ahaha dckhead got pwned.

[new2ford]

The way our legal system is she'll be charged with attempted murder and he'll receive $3.2 mill compensation!

[Werd.]

Lmao, and she'll be sued.
I love our justice system.

[gtfpv]

maybe she can do a deal , and give him her car and purse and phone pay for his medical bills and throw in a dinner for 2. to save him charging her .

[fastapasta]

I understand better now. She drove him to where he wanted to and he then got out and tried to rob her.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Werd.

Lmao, and she'll be sued.
I love our justice system.

That's right.

Hit and run, assult with a weapon, dangerous driving, etc.

[sfr rob]

It's a sad, sad system we have here......
She should have done the job properly in the first place.

[Ives]

Originally Posted by |||

pity he survived

Indeed.

[TZENU]

Originally Posted by sfr rob

She should have done the job properly in the first place.

Concrete shoes and into the Yarra?

[Fev]

go the cement galoshes!

[sgt_doofey]

Why did he get out of the car to rob her? Just doesn't sound right to me. Wouldn't it be easier to rob someone whilst sitting next to them in the car?
Anyway, he's a tool and karma sought him out by the sounds of it.

[TUF_302]

He got what he deserved, all is well!

[fmc351]

Can I start with rofl, he got what he deserved.

If she 'panicked', then she has nothing to worry about it will just be one of those things. If she deliberately ran him over as he was leaving she was no longer in any danger as he is not in the car or in a position to harm her, and her actions are nothing short of revenge. Id understand her wanting to hurt the b4stard, but its not legal and for good reason. Reasons not directly linked to her circumstances or the crime in question, but to the ability of society to function without anarchy. So far they are saying she panicked, so Id say she has nothing to worry about.

If she was in direct danger then she can deliberately injure him to avoid the danger. But you cant deliberately injure someone just because they robbed you, thats what police and courts do.

When she isnt charged or sued successfully, will all those law knockers come back here and retract your statements? Or will you continue to believe your delusion about the legal system and carry on as if youre Anna Corren? You come across like the anti-hoon brigade, ignorant of reality, and overly misinformed by TV and misrepresented anecdotal stories.

Yeah errors happen in the system, and the penalties often are too light, but its not quite as bad as everyone makes out, and you wont like the bill to house them if penalties were stiffer. Sometimes the things that get a guilty b4stard off, are the same things that protect your rights, if they werent in place, neither would your rights and just because youve committed a crime does not mean you should be void of any rights. Its like a marriage, you have to take the good with the bad.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Can I start with rofl, he got what he deserved.

If she 'panicked', then she has nothing to worry about it will just be one of those things. If she deliberately ran him over as he was leaving she was no longer in any danger as he is not in the car or in a position to harm her, and her actions are nothing short of revenge. Id understand her wanting to hurt the b4stard, but its not legal and for good reason. Reasons not directly linked to her circumstances or the crime in question, but to the ability of society to function without anarchy. So far they are saying she panicked, so Id say she has nothing to worry about.

If she was in direct danger then she can deliberately injure him to avoid the danger. But you cant deliberately injure someone just because they robbed you, thats what police and courts do.

When she isnt charged or sued successfully, will all those law knockers come back here and retract your statements? Or will you continue to believe your delusion about the legal system and carry on as if youre Anna Corren? You come across like the anti-hoon brigade, ignorant of reality, and overly misinformed by TV and misrepresented anecdotal stories.

Yeah errors happen in the system, and the penalties often are too light, but its not quite as bad as everyone makes out, and you wont like the bill to house them if penalties were stiffer. Sometimes the things that get a guilty b4stard off, are the same things that protect your rights, if they werent in place, neither would your rights and just because youve committed a crime does not mean you should be void of any rights. Its like a marriage, you have to take the good with the bad.

Hey lighten up! My original joke was just that. Ever heard of black humour? Maybe somebody should design a forum where voice intonation shows up? :

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Hey lighten up! My original joke was just that. Ever heard of black humour? Maybe somebody should design a forum where voice intonation shows up? :

You may have intended it that way, but most people remember these things in some form or another and as a result changes occur in the system because of misrepresentations. You want an example, Tort reform, the public got the short end of the stick and insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank, the funny part is the public made it happen.

Yeah Ive heard of black humour, I post on Stile Project Forums, its all black humour, or was.

[bf tubs]

she should have driven him to morley drive police station just round the corner from where he was dropped off, that would have got rid of him quick

[fastapasta]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Yeah errors happen in the system, and the penalties often are too light, but its not quite as bad as everyone makes out, and you wont like the bill to house them if penalties were stiffer.

No. Leftwing idiots like you propose a lame *** prison system.

Serial violent offenders should be executed cheap chinese style none of this being on leftwin style death row for decades if you are a serial violent criminal there is no worries about wrongful executions.

Or ship the criminals to indonesia and pay them $2 a year to prison them.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by fastapasta

No. Leftwing idiots like you propose a lame *** prison system.

Serial violent offenders should be executed cheap chinese style none of this being on leftwin style death row for decades if you are a serial violent criminal there is no worries about wrongful executions.

Or ship the criminals to indonesia and pay them $2 a year to prison them.

Left wing? Oh, so its political is it?

Bah, its called the rule of law and justice. Just because someone has committed crimes, doesnt mean they committed the next one. There is no guarantee they are guilty of anything, and erring on the side of caution is what protects the innocent from a wrongful death. I didnt really expect people to understand the difficulty of a legal system like ours, a system where youre free, have liberty and justice, while being protected all rolled into a uniform set of laws that govern the entire population of the particular jurisdiction.

Lets propose a prison system, you get Indonesia to take our criminals. When you work out why Indonesia wont take them, you'll be half way there. In the meantime we can impose an additional 10% tax on you to fund the interim response. You'd be in here crying if they raised the tax rate by 1%, let alone enough to cover harsher penalties.

Oh wait, right wing idiots like yourself think the tooth fairy will provide the money.

[theunfairadvant]

Should have just run the teenage carjacker over in a cobra,
as they show no mercy.

[Werd.]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Can I start with rofl, he got what he deserved.

If she 'panicked', then she has nothing to worry about it will just be one of those things. If she deliberately ran him over as he was leaving she was no longer in any danger as he is not in the car or in a position to harm her, and her actions are nothing short of revenge. Id understand her wanting to hurt the b4stard, but its not legal and for good reason. Reasons not directly linked to her circumstances or the crime in question, but to the ability of society to function without anarchy. So far they are saying she panicked, so Id say she has nothing to worry about.

If she was in direct danger then she can deliberately injure him to avoid the danger. But you cant deliberately injure someone just because they robbed you, thats what police and courts do.

When she isnt charged or sued successfully, will all those law knockers come back here and retract your statements? Or will you continue to believe your delusion about the legal system and carry on as if youre Anna Corren? You come across like the anti-hoon brigade, ignorant of reality, and overly misinformed by TV and misrepresented anecdotal stories.

Yeah errors happen in the system, and the penalties often are too light, but its not quite as bad as everyone makes out, and you wont like the bill to house them if penalties were stiffer. Sometimes the things that get a guilty b4stard off, are the same things that protect your rights, if they werent in place, neither would your rights and just because youve committed a crime does not mean you should be void of any rights. Its like a marriage, you have to take the good with the bad.

It wasn't exactly a serious post, more of a joke. I understand where you're coming from, but a good lawyer will win nearly any case.
Not sure if you remember or not. A robber broke into a womans house and injured himself on a knife or something sharp. He then sued them for thousands.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Werd.

It wasn't exactly a serious post, more of a joke. I understand where you're coming from, but a good lawyer will win nearly any case.
Not sure if you remember or not. A robber broke into a womans house and injured himself on a knife or something sharp. He then sued them for thousands.

These are the stories Im talking about. Show me the case, and Ill show you either a half truth, a misrepresentation, or a misunderstanding of the judgment. If not, Ill find the appeal that overturned it, or suggest the client sue the lawyer for failing to bring an appeal. Yes you can sue a lawyer and win, you cant for actions in court as to allow that would place them under restrictions to vigorously defend clients, and that defence is critical in our system. Thats another wives tale, lawyers cant be sued because they look after their own, they can be and judges love to bring them down a peg or two.

Thats not to say the law cant be an ***, there are times when a court is bound by a good law, but that same law also lends itself to an injustice. If the court can it applies legal maxims like "the court wont be used as a tool of injustice", but can only do so where that wont weaken the good aspect of the law, remember courts are bound by precedent and use of the maxim may create a precedent which weakens the law, or the limits placed on the maxim prevent its application. Its complex, extremely complex and much more so due to the fact that like any profession it is open to human error at times.

I promise you judges do not take the law lightly, and they dont take pleasure in abhorrent judgments. Its a sore point for me, I react to it like many posters here do in regard to hooning. We all know there are issues, but a blanket statement does little justice to reality. I probably shouldnt.

[Werd.]

Originally Posted by fmc351

These are the stories Im talking about. Show me the case, and Ill show you either a half truth, a misrepresentation, or a misunderstanding of the judgment. If not, Ill find the appeal that overturned it, or suggest the client sue the lawyer for failing to bring an appeal. Yes you can sue a lawyer and win, you cant for actions in court as to allow that would place them under restrictions to vigorously defend clients, and that defence is critical in our system. Thats another wives tale, lawyers cant be sued because they look after their own, they can be and judges love to bring them down a peg or two.

Thats not to say the law cant be an ***, there are times when a court is bound by a good law, but that same law also lends itself to an injustice. If the court can it applies legal maxims like "the court wont be used as a tool of injustice", but can only do so where that wont weaken the good aspect of the law, remember courts are bound by precedent and use of the maxim may create a precedent which weakens the law, or the limits placed on the maxim prevent its application. Its complex, extremely complex and much more so due to the fact that like any profession it is open to human error at times.

I promise you judges do not take the law lightly, and they dont take pleasure in abhorrent judgments. Its a sore point for me, I react to it like many posters here do in regard to hooning. We all know there are issues, but a blanket statement does little justice to reality. I probably shouldnt.

Judge judy - Ebay scammer.

Youtube that, proof she has NFI what she is on about when it comes to computers. are there specific internet crime judges who have some idea of how a computer works?

[ebxr8240]

In NSW she could have her car confiscated for 3 months...

[fastapasta]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Left wing? Oh, so its political is it?




Oh wait, right wing idiots like yourself think the tooth fairy will provide the money.

YOu still dont get it.

Leftwing people speak BS like Capital punishment is too expensive because of the appeals and long time on death row.

But that is assuming you keep the needle dick expensive prison system.

Yes if you rape someone in north sydney, do a robbery in south sydney, assault someone in sydney there is a pattern of behaviour and there is no doubt to your innocence.

It is cheaper to execute them chinese bullet style.

The only expense is the 5000 for the funeral but that is a lot cheaper than the police having to search for them every time they re commit an offence.

[gtfpv]

i once was facing charges for a forged/ and fraudulan mars bar wrapper ( changed to appear as a winning ticket) and sent to claim the prize) detectives flew up from MELBOURNE to charge me . now this si as rediculous as it sounds and it is true .
i was young and a victim of a practical joke played on me by fellow employees. i wont go into the whole story .
but hey when you think about the stupidity of mars bar actually pressing charges over something they new was never going to happen ( ie , i was never going to be paid out prize money with this ticket) the justice system looked after me and squashed it in minutes .
all it took was a phone call from my lawyer. and the matter was instantly squashed . when the lawyer was suggesting charging the 2 detectives involved and MARS.

sounds redicoulous doent it . but i was facing 6 months prison and a very big fine for this .