Worth a look - Pissed but not in charge?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: D Walford on 15 Jul 2010 09:49 On 15/07/2010 10:14 PM, Clocky wrote: > Diesel Damo wrote: >> On Jul 14, 8:42 pm, "Clocky"<notg...(a)happen.com> wrote: >> >>> You don't know enough about the case to decide whether the drunk had >>> intent to drive because you weren't there. >> >> That's exactly right. And neither do you. Welcome to my point. >> > > The evidence is that he was pissed behind the wheel of a running car. He has > taken control at that point. > >>> 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. >> >> But you don't know, and neither do it. My point stands. >> > > There is no question about his state and that he was in the drivers seat of > a running car. That is undisputed. > The cops did the right thing, they had no other option. Seems 2 courts disagree with you and the cops and my bet is they know the law in their jurisdiction better than you. Seems the cops had other options but failed to use them so they lost the case. Daryl
From: Feral on 15 Jul 2010 16:47 Clocky wrote: > All drunk drivers deserve worse then that. I'm not so keen on letting drunks > sit behind the wheel of a running car because in my experience not one of > them had any other intentions then to drive away, and putting innocent > people at risk. Or nun raked up the riddle of the moad, or dattempt to rink a vottle of bodka. When they decide to do something the single-mindedness is incredibly strong. Damo can't have any drunk relatives, friends or peers. -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: Feral on 15 Jul 2010 17:17 D Walford wrote: > No but if they suspected he might drive they could have observed him > from a distance and quickly intercepted him if he did move the vehicle > long before he had time to do any damage. Yeah, they could have taken turns having naps - for how long? -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: Feral on 15 Jul 2010 17:19 D Walford wrote: > Seems 2 courts disagree with you and the cops and my bet is they know > the law in their jurisdiction better than you. > Seems the cops had other options but failed to use them so they lost the > case. But the bloke never got the chance to drive away when he felt like it. Job done. -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: D Walford on 16 Jul 2010 02:34
On 16/07/2010 7:17 AM, Feral wrote: > D Walford wrote: > >> No but if they suspected he might drive they could have observed him >> from a distance and quickly intercepted him if he did move the vehicle >> long before he had time to do any damage. > > Yeah, they could have taken turns having naps - for how long? > Another option would be too confiscate the car keys if the person he was waiting for didn't show up within a reasonable time. I don't know if they still do that but they used to in Melb. many years ago. Daryl |