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] Motorcyclist Could Not Escape The Long Arm Of The Law

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by pro-pilot, Apr 28, 2008.

  1. Well sounds like he was a tool for riding disqualified and speeding. But I like how they blame him for the damage.

    So pulling a guy of a bike and causing it to slam into police property is his fault!?

    And ultimately it was refusing a breath test rather than a vehicle offence that is quoted as the nail in his coffin (so to speak)


    http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=15209




     
     Top
  2. I think it is his fault. Firstly for riding whilst drunk. And if he didn't try to get away and copped it sweet then the damage would not have occurred.
     
     Top
  3. I agree with cruiser bloke the guy is completely responsible for his actions.
     
     Top
  4. I think "minor damage" to anything is the least of that guy's future troubles.
     
     Top
  5. QFT! (quoted for truth)
     
     Top
  6. Why would anyone come to the defence of someone who's just tried to evade the cops and stuffed it up?? He must be pretty dumb also as he's obviously stopped or nearly stopped to enable the cop to grab him in the first place!!

    No sympathy here. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. He chose his path, now deal with the consequences.
     
     Top
  7. He was engaged in an illegal act so therefore I think he would be responsible for damage, unless of course what the cop did was outside reasonable guidelines. :?
     
     Top
  8. Re: [Vic] Motorcyclist Could Not Escape The Long Arm Of The

    See PP agrees with all of you.
    You just have to learn how to read things the PP way ;).
     
     Top
  9. Finally, some sense!!! the rider IS responsible for the damage, for all the reasons stated.

    +1 to all of you :grin:
     
     Top
  10. :? It doesn't say anywhere in that report that he was or is being required to pay for the damage, nor that he is being charged with causing the damage, as I read it. The charge seems to relate only to the original offence and his subsequent refusal to cooperate with Police. (For both of which, I agree, he is a dill).
     
     Top
  11. I agree. To ensure they do not go outside reasonable guidelines they should have used a tazer on him.
     
     Top
  12. The same way Snr Const David Stephenson was responsible for the
    damage done to his face n head for a stupid act he did inside my car.

    I like the principle!

    Pass on my regards :grin:
     
     Top
  13. The first paragraph is wrong. Being disqualified didn't stop him riding before...so why will it stop him now?

    He should not have a second chance. There are two reasons to send a person to prison.
    The first is for punishment.
    The second is to protect the community.
     
     Top
  14. ^because it's his 2nd offence, we assume he didn't learn anything...

    But why was he disqualified from driving in the first place?

    Some pretty insignificant crap can get your license cancelled these days, this might have been his first serious offence.

    A friend of mine had his license cancelled for being found on a train without a ticket, and then he was late paying the fine.
    :arrow: which is bullshit.
     
     Top
  15. I would have thought community service would be more appropriate in this case as it does both, without the expense of putting another person in already overcrowded jails for a relatively minor offence.
     
     Top
  16. Re: [Vic] Motorcyclist Could Not Escape The Long Arm Of The

    Yep. Actually he is potentially guilty of all the offences and liable for the damage, as it is directly related to an offence being committed.
     
     Top
  17. They have made him responsible for the damage.
    I wouldn't say it was entirely his fault.
     
     Top
  18. The point is that he caused the damage whilst in the commission of an offence. He is liable.
     
     Top
  19. I don't understand how he caused the damage when the damage resulted
    from the actions of the Police :?

    Its just as ludicrous as saying a driver who runs a red light & T-bones a
    vehicle crossing the intersection on green lights all of a sudden becomes
    responsible for the damage caused because the driver he t-boned is later
    found to be unlicensed.

    Furthermore I would add despite what I think is a bullshit first sentence in
    the article, when its read in full, its clear that the driving bans & fines are
    not related to the damage caused, but rather the multitude of driving
    offences.

    There was no wilful damage to Police property & no associated charge(s)
    laid for obvious reason. This did not occur.

    There is no automatic licenses suspension or fine for damaging Police
    property intended or otherwise. Restitution/fines etc is determined by the
    hearing Magistrate & this hoon has not been to court yet.

    If the constabulary yanked me off my bike or purposely rammed me &/or
    my bike for whatever reason then attempted to blame me for damage to
    their vehicles due to their actions, they'd have another thing coming
    to em.

    They have not got a dime from me to date & never will. Hell will freeze over
    before those ferkers try making me responsible for damage cause to
    their property because of their actions.

    You can trust me 100% on that as well 849.

    So based on past experience I have a hard time believing that.
     
     Top
  20. Trust me, on the facts in the article what I'm saying is possible.

    Ok, another example.
    If you cause (inadvertant) damage whilst committing a burglary, you can be charged with willful damage.

    The action of committing the burg itself means all further actions are "deliberate" and thus "criminal" automatically.
    The "intent" component of all the offences becomes automatic.

    If you kill a person whilst holding up a bank even accidently they will charge you with a "deliberate" not "accidental" offence, eg: Murder. As soon as you commit the first offence any secondary offences are "deliberate".

    I'm not saying he would get convicted, but he could.
     
     Top