Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Motorcyclist goes to jail for 30 years for doing a runner

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by [FLUX], Dec 4, 2005.

  1. That just makes me angry :evil:

    Yes he was doing the wrong thing but he DIDNT kill anyone, what a load of shit.

    As for the shit about looking behind him, im not sayin he didnt realise he was bein followed but your doin pretty well to be able to look behind ya whilst doin 150Mph on the street. EIther way its beside the point, wasnt his fault.
  2. This reminds me of how fat people blame maccas. Just stop eating the stuff :twisted:
  3. What about the Porche? :shock:
  4. They should hang him, make him swing , with 60,000 on the police force ,
    thats 60,000 people he may have killed, let the jerk swing :roll:
  5. the judge should apply for a seat on the bench in singapore ... he would fit in well there
  6. People were happy to use the US as a 'they kill people too' argument in the 'should he swing' Singapore thread... but when it strikes close to home they scream, just because it was a motorcyclist who broke the law and was punished harshly.

    People were unhappy when that woman hit and killed the motorcyclist in Melbourne and were saying 7 years isn't enough.

    At the end of the day the motorcyclist broke the law and ran and now a police officer is dead... and the motorcyclist bears _some_ responsibility for that.

    But yes... 30 years is excessive...
    JUST like hanging for low level drug muling.
  7. Drug users have a choice - to use or not - and sometimes those choices go wrong. The result is that users die.

    Cops have a choice - to pursue or not - in this case, that choice went wrong. The result is that a cop died.

    If Van is required to take some responsbility for the bad choices made by drug users (and I fully agree that he should have to take some responsibility), this clown needs to take some responsibility for the misery that resulted from his actions.

    Maybe the courts wanted to make an example of him - just like Van. Who cares? He's been charged, convicted and, I assume has the right to appeal. What's everyone getting so pissed about?

    (hmm...seems to be an echo in here...)
  8. He was racing a Porsche. He probably knew what the penalty was for that.

    Let's face it. He and this Porsche were racing. They would've passed the officer doing 150mph (240kph), or about 67 meters per second. How long would it have taken the officer to even get within both audio and visual range of the two racers? The two racers would've been about 1km ahead by the time the officer even got to match their speed. As we all know, a Porsche is one of the best handling stock cars around (made for safe 250-300kph travel on German autobahn's), and we can only presume that the bike was pretty decent too, at least a 600cc super-sport. So this officer is some some overweight american POS cruiser with a monster motor but crap handling and shitty tyres, flooring it trying to catch up to these two.

    Both the Porsche driver and the biker wouldn't have even known they were being followed. When doing in a full tuck doing 240kph down the straight at Phillip Island, I can assure you that looking backwards is about the last thing on one's mind. As for mirrors, when in a tuck the mirrors show sky, not the road behind.

    Sure, these guys were going extremely fast and should be hit up for that charge, but as the officer's death, this is a bit like "If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a noise?" sort of scenario. They would've had no idea that the officer was following them, the officer crashed, and now the biker is being hit up with the officer's death.

    It was the officer's choice to attempt to pursue these guys.

    Okay, let's put a different spin on it. Say you were speeding at 20kph over the limit on the Hume, going downhill. A HWP car notices you, begins to pull out from his "nest" to pursue without looking and gets cleaned up and killed by a semi-trailer barrelling down the freeway. Technically the officer was in pursuit of you, but it was the officer's actions that lead to his death. Should YOU go to jail for 30 years for the officer's lack of judgement?

    It is extremely unfortunate that the officer died. The officer was a member of a police unit with a "no dangerous chase" policy, and he chose to ignore that policy. The speeders were reckless and dangerous, there is no doubt of that, but to hit them up for a 30 year charge over something that the officer did without them even being aware?

    I know for sure that if I do something wrong on the road, I sure as heck don't want to go to jail for 30 years because the police force fitted crappy tyres to the pursuit car and the officer died before I was even aware that he was following me.
  9. I just find myself wondering how many motorcyclists are now going "too harsh for the biker" and went "hang him" for the drug mule :twisted:
  10. *edit* double post timeout.
  11. This less about the rights and wrongs of the case, and more about the American's fetish for litigation. Can you imagine the same absurd situation in a court in, say, Honduras, or Taiwan?? I doubt it. Sad thing is Australians are catching the disease; "I did something dumb and hurt myself, who can I sue and make some money out of it?"
  12. No more, nor less, than Van should have died because of a drug user's lack of judgement. Moreover, no-one (except Van) died as a result of what Van did.

    Whether or not he knew that the officer was in pursuit is irrelevant. Van didn't know that anyone was going to be affected by the drug he was carrying. This guy didn't know that any cop was going to pursue him. However, both could reasonably forsee that their behaviour could lead to a tragic outcome and continued regardless. And if we're going to condemn Van for that, we should be equally strong in our condemnation of this bloke.

    But this is a criminal, rather than a civil case, so there's no money to be made by the cop's family, and the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than "balance of probabilitites". I imagine that the officer's family will follow up with a civil suit. If the breadwinner in my family was killed as the result of a criminal act (and that's what the courts have decided this to be) I'd be doing the same.
  13. Chairman, this is not an argument about the fairness/unfairness of Van's penalty. Drop it.

    Analyse this scenario on its merits alone.
  14. ...and this is precisely why there are set laws and penalties that cover these sorts of speeding offenses. The racers would've roughly known about these laws, and yes, they did choose to disregard public safety. Quite another thing for them to be hit for 30 years jail for it based on the issue of faulty car tyres fitted to an officer's car that blew as a result of the officer choosing to ignore his department's "no dangerous chase" policy.
  15. That is an unreasonable statement!

    Nothing can be analysed in isolation... and everything should be compared to something else.

    It is a legitimate comparison that Chairman has made... you are free to disagree with his reasoning... but not the fact that he compared them.
  16. Do you have any assets worth liquidating?

    You can keep the Honda! :LOL:
  17. No this is about the US's fetish for harsher penalties...
    that theme runs through most of thier judicial system.
  18. What I object to is that it pollutes the debate. The comparison to Van's sentence as made by Chairman is implicitly assuming that I supported the sentence handed down to Van. Here's where it pollutes the debate. Now I would have to stop and then explain why I thought that Van's sentence was unfair before we can continue down the reasoning of debating this scenario.

    Do I think Van should have been hanged? No. So where does that leave Chairman's Van comparison now?
  19. You've explained that you weren't in favour of Van being hanged, that's taken a couple of extra posts.

    I wouldn't hardly call a short diversion 'polluting the debate', it's not like people have a post quota :)