Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6734
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:59 pm

human909 wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.
Unfortunately there really isn't much else. There is dangerous driving, but given the driver wasn't speeding that is unlikely to stick the way our approach to road justice opperates :roll:
You may be right though I find that relying on speed as a prerequisite for dangerous driving to be problem too. Driving through South Terrace Freo on a Saturday evening at the legal speed limit would hopefully be considered to be at least dangerous. Though after the Jim's incident, if it is as reported by cp123, one would wonder.

cp123, are you the one who contacted the police? Or did you see this somewhere? And was the charge dangerous driving or were there more serious charges also laid and the court chose to go with failing to give way?
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle

User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
Posts: 6734
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:36 pm

Oxford wrote:speeding is not necessarily exceeding the speed limit, it can also be defined as exceeding a speed that is reasonable under the circumstances. and in this situation I would argue the driver was "speeding" ie exceeding a speed that was reasonable under the circumstances. if he were not "speeding", then the situation that unfolded could and should have been avoided.
And that would be a reasonable way to apply the term. Wouldn't it be great if that was indeed how the system works?

I suspect that in some places it does and others it doesn't. The NT for example, would still be allowing the cannonball run as a lawful activity if it wasn't for the publics disquiet that some retiree died as a result of the event's stupid concept.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle

jcjordan
Posts: 1094
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:58 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby jcjordan » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:21 pm

ColinOldnCranky wrote:
jcjordan wrote:
hannos wrote:is that all he got?


ACT Police are soft
Hell you cant be found guilty of murder here unless the prosecution can prove that you intention was to kill prior to the event.
Well, yes. That is what murder is - intentionally killing someone. Generally although many governments have been chipping away so the unintentional death can be treated as murder.

The trouble with lowering the bar like that is that someone who GENUINELY went out of their way to kill someone (to inherit anothers persons wealth, to avenge some insult or stake a claim on some gangland turf for example) would be no worse than an act of gross stupidity which is what things like Jims mowing incident fits very well.

Though I certainly find that "failing to give way" is an outright joke if that is what was the outcome. There must be whole of more serious charges that the incident would easily fit.
The way its interprited here is that if you should get into a fight or something and kill the person it cant be murder as you did not arrive with that intent. Even i you decided to kill them due to the argument or what ever its not murder.

We are the only State/Territory that interprets it that way, got to love our Human Rights ACT. Takes away more then it gives.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 2
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home

jindydiver
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:16 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby jindydiver » Sun Jul 08, 2012 10:20 am

Oxford wrote:speeding is not necessarily exceeding the speed limit, it can also be defined as exceeding a speed that is reasonable under the circumstances. and in this situation I would argue the driver was "speeding" ie exceeding a speed that was reasonable under the circumstances. if he were not "speeding", then the situation that unfolded could and should have been avoided.
They were speeding for sure. The speed limit on that piece of road is only 40kph

MikeyD360
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby MikeyD360 » Sun Jul 08, 2012 3:35 pm

Having melted my brain by reading the ninemsn comments (and dying a little inside at how completely neanderthal most of the population is) all I can say is.

You are all Stupid Mouths.
Image
2012 Fuji SST1.0 stealth (full Ultegra)
2010 Merida TFS400D Hybrid

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby cp123 » Mon Jul 09, 2012 12:18 pm

Colin - no - it's not me in that film, nor the videoer nor anything. I first saw this on the Riot Act website (A canberra local goss rag). I know Ross is another local :lol: and he brought it here.


I guess I was just fairly appalled when I saw the comment on the RA website that outlined what the police action was.



You'd hate to have to be splattered before they really slap someone on the wrist.

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5742
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby Ross » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:16 pm

I saw a cyclist today wearing full Jim's Mowing kit!

User avatar
mikedufty
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:52 pm
Location: Western Australia, Bull Creek

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby mikedufty » Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:39 pm

jcjordan wrote: The way its interprited here is that if you should get into a fight or something and kill the person it cant be murder as you did not arrive with that intent.
Wow, I didn't realise murder was defined differently between states/territories. In WA the criteria is that you intended to cause grevious bodily harm at the time the murder was committed. Still hard to get a jury to agree it is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a jury when noone can define what is reasonable doubt.

User avatar
skull
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby skull » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:24 pm

Ross wrote:I saw a cyclist today wearing full Jim's Mowing kit!
There is a cyclist that has his own jims mowing franchise here in canberra.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:30 pm

I find it interesting that the driver was not aware that he made contact with the cyclist. I occasionally drive a vehicle with a trailer and take extra care not to wipe out other road users with the trailer. You can drive with your brain switched on, where your actions have consequences or drive with your brain switched off, where your only priority is to get where you are going, take no consideration of other road users and where your actions don't affect others.
<removed by request>

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:30 pm

skull wrote:
Ross wrote:I saw a cyclist today wearing full Jim's Mowing kit!
There is a cyclist that has his own jims mowing franchise here in canberra.
I bet he doesn't wipe out cyclists with his trailer :wink:
<removed by request>

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Hit and run by Jim's Mowing

Postby cp123 » Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:37 pm

we'd hope not. :shock:


i wonder if the bad Jim's mowing man has a collection of those "my family" stickers or a bunch of his "victims" with a cross through them.... or should that be something like these ones from creepy uncle...


http://www.creepyuncle.com.au/category/7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



:evil:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users