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.

VIC RE Policewoman charged with fatal collision Part 2

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Wolve, Feb 28, 2012.

  1. Hi Brad, I haven't revisted this thread for some time and only read this one recently. In light of clear evidence I'm always prepared to revaluate my opinion of perceived injustice. The basis of my regard to this case was from media reports alone. However your post concerns me for the following reasons;

    I was aware the rider was on a vehicle outside his license class however there was no mention that his speed was a factor in the collision however it was stated that he was clearly on his side of the road at that point. The driver of the car also clearly admitted fault as in his own words "he was fiddling with the radio" when he crossed the median into the oncoming lane. The comments you raise regarding the driving history of the rider give cause that you consider anyone who has a prior history of convictions does always ride outside the law and therefore must have contributed to the collision. That if he at this particular time may have been wholey doing nothing wrong other than being there on the wrong bike is of no consequence. That being on the 1000cc bike must be a contributing factor in the collision. What manner of logic is this? I did speak to police members about this case hence my comment on their view of the sentence and yes he did plead guilty but - no custodial sentence. Are we not entitled to an opinion on what would be considered justice for killing a rider in a case where the driver pleaded guilty?

    My concern also is that a similar line of defense was used in the case of Luke Wilson where as his mother described of the court "a parade of blue uniforms vouching for the officer involved occured before the defense tore apart my son's credibility with lines like the bike was in an "overserviced" condition as it had new tyres". That he may have been a conscientious rider on a maticulously maintained vehilce (obviously his pride and joy) meant that somehow, other than just being there that day, he contributed to the collision. Again, there was no reference to the speed he had been travelling in any reports.

    I concur with sticking to the facts and as I have written before, if I find something I have written that is in error I will endeavour to correct this as soon as I am made aware of it. How the legal system works is part of this topic and I am all ears to hear of and learn more about it. Otherwise, I am yet to read of anything to change my mind that there are injustices happening for which collectively we need to make a change.

  2. Bravo. Thank you for sharing in such an articulate manner. I have learned that arguing about a decision by a jury of our peers is naive and that the legal profession itself holds high the ideals of the community. Perhaps our target audience for perceived injustice needs a rethink.
  3. Thank you for your effort. I would like to read the details on these so will try to search myself. I was wondering if there is a more reliable source than forum threads?
  4. Wolve what is this about mate I'm afraid i'm a little lost?
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Why start a new thread?! Maybe you didn't read the informative media reports? I confirmed Brad's information (7) months ago
    in a post to Robsalvv. He did not say anything that wasn't publicly available.

    See above.

    In addition, unless your prior convictions have been ruled inadmissible, it can be relevant and introduced in Court.

  6. i'm with chef
  7. Tried to post in the old thread but it didn't allow it.

    Thanks Justus, I read your reply to Rob. The facts I'm reading about in that case don't convince me that the rider was at fault. I suppose that anyone with priors must just accept that it will always be their fault? Is the more to this?
  8. Facts you are reading from where?

  9. The media reports at the time. I know, I know, hence my question - is there more to this not reported?

    Were there witnesses to the riders behaviour at the time? Yes the impact energy was severe, but not suprising if two vehicles collided head on both doing 70klm/h. What other evidence was there to support the notion that he was riding outside the law at the time?

    Reading the comments on the sentencing, what concerns me is the theme that since the rider had a string of convictions that this may impact on sentencing of the driver who admitted fault in this collision. How is this relevant? I will admit to being naive about how the justice system works with this but the idea appears abhorrent in that it confirms that anyone who has convicted of driving offenses is somehow of less value as a human. Can you enlighten me on the reality of this? Am I barking up the wrong tree?