From: Noddy on 10 Jun 2007 07:53
"Michael" <mickpc(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message
> Until the full details of the incident are gone though we shouldn't blame
> anyone. What I am worried about is the clear *lack* of information to the
> public after it happened. Most of what has been talked about is
C'mon Michael, how much information do you need to draw a reasonable
Look at the basics. A truck approaching a level crossing on a clear day in
an open area with good visibility runs into the side of a train going
through that crossing minding it's own business, and police charge the truck
driver a couple of days later. Without wishing to blame anyone, you don't
have to be Einstein to put two & two together and conclude that the truck
driver is *clearly* at fault.
The how & why's of it all is just scenery for the spectators.
> Maybe you would be better off thinking of the family's of the victims and
> preventing it from happening again instead of condemning the driver with
> no information.
Again, the truck driver has been *charged* with culpable driving. He was
charged very quickly after the event which, to me at least, would indicate
that the cops think it's a fairly open & shut case. He's also likely to face
10 more charges of the same thing.
The difficult part in all of this for him if it goes to trial will be
finding a juror who *doesn't* think he's as guilty as sin.
> You think you know enough about the particular incident to judge the man.
I don't think anyone's judging him other than to suggest that he fucked up,
and that can happen to anyone.
> The whole incident is very sad.
It is indeed.
From: Noddy on 10 Jun 2007 08:03
"jonz" <series11(a)landy> wrote in message news:466bcbab(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> yep, and i`d reckon about 5ft 2in ....................................
You can only dream of being that tall when you grow up and put your matchbox
cars away for good, huh?
From: Andy on 10 Jun 2007 09:26
> Andy wrote:
>> jonz wrote:
>>> so are you judge, jury, and executioner ?.........thought the
>>> judicial process had not begun yet ?
>> Are you suggesting it was somehow the train's fault?
> Until the full details of the incident are gone though we shouldn't
> blame anyone. What I am worried about is the clear *lack* of information
> to the public after it happened.
They're running an inquiry. They have no obligation to release details
to the public until it's finished.
From: Michael on 10 Jun 2007 10:32
> "jonz" <series11(a)landy> wrote in message
>> yeeehaaaaa, lookout now........... its noddy and the lyncheroos. watch
>> as they run roughshod over the judicial system, haul this bloke from his
>> hospital bed, and hang him from his own bullbar.......cold drinks and
>> sausage sangers will be on sale, fun for all....
> You were born a retard, weren't you?
> I mean, you couldn't get this good at it if you practiced 10 hours a day for
> 60 years.
You would have to bring disabled people into the argument Noddy, tell me
are you against every minority group in Australia, or do you have everyone?
From: Blue Heeler on 10 Jun 2007 18:49
> > Maybe you would be better off thinking of the family's of the
> > victims and preventing it from happening again instead of
> > condemning the driver with no information.
> Again, the truck driver has been charged with culpable driving. He
> was charged very quickly after the event which, to me at least, would
> indicate that the cops think it's a fairly open & shut case. He's
> also likely to face 10 more charges of the same thing.
> The difficult part in all of this for him if it goes to trial will be
> finding a juror who doesn't think he's as guilty as sin.
The fact that he was clearly responsible for the accident has nothing
to do with a determination of criminal responsibility.
The task of the court in selecting a jury is to ensure that jury
members understand the difference.
It's then the task of the defence to persuade that jury that in fact he
is not criminally responsible - and in the case of the defence they
need only reach a "balance of probabilities" level of persuasion.
Conversely it's the task of the prosecution to establish criminal
responsibility to the higher standard of "beyond reasonable doubt".
Interesting thing on ABC radio in Brisbane last week, the presenter
(Kelly Higgins-Devine) had her sister on the phone - sister apparently
hit a train on exactly the same crossing a couple of years back - but
in her case it was a goods train and her 4wd bounced back from the low
carriage it hit.