From: F Murtz on 13 Jul 2010 20:15 Diesel Damo wrote: > On Jul 14, 12:02 am, "Clocky"<notg...(a)happen.com> wrote: > >> Maybe they picked you as a "pig" hater and thought you deserved a going >> over... > > Jesus. I hope you NEVER get jury duty. Do policemen or ex policemen do jury duty?
From: Clocky on 14 Jul 2010 06:42 Diesel Damo wrote: > On Jul 12, 9:47 am, "Clocky" <notg...(a)happen.com> wrote: > >> Drunks don't feel the cold. > >> The intent was pretty clear, he only failed in the execution because >> he was too pissed and passed out. > > Wow. How many hours a week to you offer your "gut feel" services to > courts so they can make convictions based purely on your opinions? You don't know enough about the case to decide whether the drunk had intent to drive because you weren't there. That is my point, it may well have been obvious to the cops who were there as to what his intent was (or had been) but the got out of it it with a technicality whether he was guilty or not. Can > you also post a scan of your "I Know Best" certificate? Burden of > proof is such a pesky little thing. Your assumption that the drunk had no intention of driving is based on what evidence exactly? That is my point, my post was the simply the opposite of the assumptions being made that the drunk somehow was innocent and the cops got it wrong. If the drunk is too pissed to realise that sitting behind the wheel of a running car is a bad idea (and to keep warm he would be far more comfortable in the passenger or rear seat anyway) he deserved to be booked as there is no telling what his next step might be.
From: D Walford on 14 Jul 2010 07:06 On 14/07/2010 5:47 PM, Scotty wrote: > Mines a Dec `09 Lux SR5 > > Has yours got the extra little indicators in the bumper? That's about the only way I can identify the very latest model from the outside. Daryl
From: D Walford on 14 Jul 2010 07:11 On 14/07/2010 8:42 PM, Clocky wrote: > Diesel Damo wrote: >> On Jul 12, 9:47 am, "Clocky"<notg...(a)happen.com> wrote: >> >>> Drunks don't feel the cold. >> >>> The intent was pretty clear, he only failed in the execution because >>> he was too pissed and passed out. >> >> Wow. How many hours a week to you offer your "gut feel" services to >> courts so they can make convictions based purely on your opinions? > > You don't know enough about the case to decide whether the drunk had intent > to drive because you weren't there. > That is my point, it may well have been obvious to the cops who were there > as to what his intent was (or had been) but the got out of it it with a > technicality whether he was guilty or not. > > Can >> you also post a scan of your "I Know Best" certificate? Burden of >> proof is such a pesky little thing. > > Your assumption that the drunk had no intention of driving is based on what > evidence exactly? And yours that he was intending to drive is based on? That is my point, my post was the simply the opposite of > the assumptions being made that the drunk somehow was innocent and the cops > got it wrong. Both points of view are assumptions and since a person is innocent until proven guilty and there is no proof either way IMO the two courts made the correct decision. Innocent until proven guilty is what out entire legal system is based on so I hope your not suggesting we should abandon that principle? Daryl
From: Toby on 14 Jul 2010 08:51
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:11:20 +1000, D Walford wrote: > On 14/07/2010 8:42 PM, Clocky wrote: >> Diesel Damo wrote: >>> On Jul 12, 9:47 am, "Clocky"<notg...(a)happen.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Drunks don't feel the cold. >>> >>>> The intent was pretty clear, he only failed in the execution because >>>> he was too pissed and passed out. >>> >>> Wow. How many hours a week to you offer your "gut feel" services to >>> courts so they can make convictions based purely on your opinions? >> >> You don't know enough about the case to decide whether the drunk had intent >> to drive because you weren't there. >> That is my point, it may well have been obvious to the cops who were there >> as to what his intent was (or had been) but the got out of it it with a >> technicality whether he was guilty or not. >> >> Can >>> you also post a scan of your "I Know Best" certificate? Burden of >>> proof is such a pesky little thing. >> >> Your assumption that the drunk had no intention of driving is based on what >> evidence exactly? > > And yours that he was intending to drive is based on? > > That is my point, my post was the simply the opposite of >> the assumptions being made that the drunk somehow was innocent and the cops >> got it wrong. > > Both points of view are assumptions and since a person is innocent until > proven guilty and there is no proof either way IMO the two courts made > the correct decision. > Innocent until proven guilty is what out entire legal system is based on > so I hope your not suggesting we should abandon that principle? > > > Daryl maybe he's not - dunno. What I do know is that police NEVER ascribed to that quaint notion, and if you look closely at the courts, neither do they:-) But it sounds good. Bit like the democracy scam, really... -- Toby. Caveat Lector |