Car crushing
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: John_H on 29 Jul 2010 03:48 Doug Jewell wrote: > >If they really want to seize motor vehicles from hoons, then > crushing is a stupid waste. If the vehicle is roadworthy >or very close to it, why not donate it to a charity, or sell >it and donate the proceeds? Highway robbery takes on a new meaning! How can you possibly condone theft by the state, especially over a relatively trivial traffic offence, when the same lot hardly ever manage to recover or confiscate the proceeds of real crime (fraud, theft, crooked share deals, bogus financial schemes, etc)? A good bit of which is perpetrated by their own mates... who don't even get their balls crushed, let alone their cars! -- John H
From: atec77 on 29 Jul 2010 04:17 On 29/07/2010 4:38 PM, D Walford wrote: > On 29/07/2010 2:05 PM, PHATRS wrote: >> VicPol have been crowing about the crushing of the first "hoon's" car in >> Victoria, and even have a video of it : >> http://www.vimeo.com/13695570 >> >> Seems like a terribly irresponsible waste of resources to me, and a very >> childish punishment too. > > Agreed, bunch of complete fuckwits who make the "hoons" look intelligent. > If they had a brain they would sell the car and donate the money to a > good charity like the RCH or similar. > > > Daryl That would imply good government most unlikely atm -- X-No-Archive: Yes
From: John_H on 29 Jul 2010 05:58 Doug Jewell wrote: >John_H wrote: >> Doug Jewell wrote: >>> If they really want to seize motor vehicles from hoons, then >>> crushing is a stupid waste. If the vehicle is roadworthy >>> or very close to it, why not donate it to a charity, or sell >>> it and donate the proceeds? >> >> Highway robbery takes on a new meaning! >> >> How can you possibly condone theft by the state, especially over a >> relatively trivial traffic offence, when the same lot hardly ever >> manage to recover or confiscate the proceeds of real crime (fraud, >> theft, crooked share deals, bogus financial schemes, etc)? > >I don't condone it at all. As I said in my post, but which >you trimmed in your reply, real crims often get smaller >sentences. I'm fully aware of what you said, but selling the car (in effect stealing it and using it or the sale proceeds) is an entirely seperate issue to sentencing the offender. Plenty of crims are sentenced for their crimes while the proceeds of their crimes are seldom confiscated, either because the state doesn't have the will or the legal powers. >But, if siezing motor vehicles is going to happen, then far >better that they actually put it to a decent use rather than >just wasting it. What you still seem to be saying is that stealing the offending item (dangerous car, deadly weapon, instrument of crime, or however you might see it) is preferable to destroying it. A rough analogy might be a savage dog that bites some innocent kid. Destroying it is usually seen as justifiable but selling it on and pocketing the proceeds, or even handing it over for medical research, certainly wouldn't be. A better analogy might be Israel bulldozing terrorists' houses, which gets them plenty of flak but surely it would be vastly more immoral if they were to evict the terrorists and sell their houses. There's an underlying moral issue here, you and others seem to be missing, and it probably harks back to the days when convicted felons forfeited their property to the king who ruled over 'em. Or is it just me? :) -- John H
From: The Raven on 29 Jul 2010 06:28 "Doug Jewell" <ask(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message news:Eq-dncg-p6rfj8zRnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... > PHATRS wrote: >> VicPol have been crowing about the crushing of the first "hoon's" car in >> Victoria, and even have a video of it : >> http://www.vimeo.com/13695570 >> >> Seems like a terribly irresponsible waste of resources to me, and a very >> childish punishment too. > effectively a fine of tens of thousands of dollars (well maybe not for the > car in the video), for what, a few squealies? I'm not condoning hooning, > but the real crims get less for break & enter, motor vehicle theft, > serious assault etc. > If they really want to seize motor vehicles from hoons, then crushing is a > stupid waste. Agreed. > If the vehicle is roadworthy or very close to it, why not donate it to a > charity, or sell it and donate the proceeds? This was covered in an article I read when this car was crushed. They do sell on cars that can be returned to the road, those deemed to be too un-RWC are to be crushed. > If heavily modified, then it could be auctioned for wrecking - the panels > etc would probably still be good for repairs. Once again the proceeds > could go to a charity fund. Any money made isn't going anywhere except to the state government. > -- > What is the difference between a duck? Feathers! Geez, that's an old one.
From: Atheist Chaplain on 29 Jul 2010 07:40
"George W Frost" <georgewfrost(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Mfa4o.2010$Yv.846(a)viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com... > > "Atheist Chaplain" <abused(a)cia.gov> wrote in message > news:4c511c0b$1(a)news.x-privat.org... >> >> "PHATRS" <stoptryingtosp(a)m.me> wrote in message >> news:i2qumf$f1b$1(a)news.albasani.net... >>> VicPol have been crowing about the crushing of the first "hoon's" car in >>> Victoria, and even have a video of it : >>> http://www.vimeo.com/13695570 >>> >>> Seems like a terribly irresponsible waste of resources to me, and a very >>> childish punishment too. >>> >>> They could have at least given it to TopGear to be destroyed by the >>> army, or at least dropped it on a caravan from a great great great >>> height. >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rRY2ICT4k&feature=related >>> >>> Ben >>> >> >> you do realise that the car was first given to the Vic rescue service to >> practice on, so it was effectively put to good use IMHO > > > The SES used it for practice and cut the door pillars so that it couldn't > have been used again anyway > As I said, put to good use, they got to practice using the jaws of life. |