HDC you've been saying you're going to rule as all for years now, and still nothing.

IMO 2 years for killing someone is pretty good especially for killing a cyclist. The last time I heard about a cyclist getting killed was that women tourist getting killed near bulls which was once again by a truck driver. Although the truck driver got done with reckless driving they didnt even go to prison.

But the justice system isnt only fucked when it comes to killing cyclists, its killing anyone. Life in NZ aint worth shit.

VERT wrote:IMO 2 years for killing someone is pretty good especially for killing a cyclist. The last time I heard about a cyclist getting killed was that women tourist getting killed near bulls which was once again by a truck driver. Although the truck driver got done with reckless driving they didnt even go to prison.

But the justice system isnt only fucked when it comes to killing cyclists, its killing anyone. Life in NZ aint worth shit.

But vert that other driver Didnt see the cyclist.
Never mind, he'll have his license back in a year and be driving around the central north island again, hope he's had his eyes checked, or..or.. I guess he'll lose his license again

That happens all the time - people suspended from driving for a term far less than their jail term I guess it's 'cos people almost never ever serve their entire jail term. As someone who'll probably be well behaved and unlikely to reoffend he'll be out on "home detention" or parole in about 9 months or so...

It's all about intent. The parking meter guy intentionally committed multiple offenses over a period of time. The truck driver intentionally circumvented a system designed to stop the very accident he had.
Wait, what?

Was he on salary, or wages, or getting paid for completed runs? Maybe bonuses for getting runs completed on time? My point is, how much did his employer know about/encourage his fudging of the books, and should they be investigated/charged/shut down?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3 ... used-death
What about this one? This must be as culpable as it gets, but setting a record for light sentence. I wonder how much care the kid gets anyway if the mother is off binge drinking.

fatwombat wrote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3932886/No-jail-for-drunk-driver-who-caused-death
What about this one? This must be as culpable as it gets, but setting a record for light sentence. I wonder how much care the kid gets anyway if the mother is off binge drinking.

To me that sentence seems fair (of course it’s terrible for Mr Lee’s wife and those who love him etc). We don’t know the mitigating factors in her life up to that point (of course they are no excuse for excess drinking much less drinking / driving ).
Things including the early guilty plea and genuine remorse will hopefully mean a lot to Mr Lee’s kin and to a lesser extent, society.

Ok same crime same wepon different out come
WHY did a handbag snacher get charged and found guilty of Murder after he ran over the lady and drove off(hit &run), she was running after him to get her bag back .Maybe because he was a criminal?
WHY dont drink drivers get chraged with Murder when they kill a cyclest and drive off (hit&run)?There drunk behind the wheel which is a crime,so they to are criminals. The drunk and handbag snacher used the same weapon so WHY not the charges or outcome ?
Hand bag guy got 12 years
you all know what drunk bitch got

Crashed wrote:Ok same crime same wepon different out come
WHY did a handbag snacher get charged and found guilty of Murder after he ran over the lady and drove off(hit &run), she was running after him to get her bag back .Maybe because he was a criminal?
WHY dont drink drivers get chraged with Murder when they kill a cyclest and drive off (hit&run)?There drunk behind the wheel which is a crime,so they to are criminals. The drunk and handbag snacher used the same weapon so WHY not the charges or outcome ?
Hand bag guy got 12 years
you all know what drunk bitch got

It's about INTENT.

FLATULENTFRIEND wrote:

Crashed wrote:Ok same crime same wepon different out come
WHY did a handbag snacher get charged and found guilty of Murder after he ran over the lady and drove off(hit &run), she was running after him to get her bag back .Maybe because he was a criminal?
WHY dont drink drivers get chraged with Murder when they kill a cyclest and drive off (hit&run)?There drunk behind the wheel which is a crime,so they to are criminals. The drunk and handbag snacher used the same weapon so WHY not the charges or outcome ?
Hand bag guy got 12 years
you all know what drunk bitch got

It's about INTENT.

but handbag guy didn't intend to kill did he? - if so I would have thought he might go a bit faster

bubbaa wrote:

FLATULENTFRIEND wrote:

Crashed wrote:Ok same crime same wepon different out come
WHY did a handbag snacher get charged and found guilty of Murder after he ran over the lady and drove off(hit &run), she was running after him to get her bag back .Maybe because he was a criminal?
WHY dont drink drivers get chraged with Murder when they kill a cyclest and drive off (hit&run)?There drunk behind the wheel which is a crime,so they to are criminals. The drunk and handbag snacher used the same weapon so WHY not the charges or outcome ?
Hand bag guy got 12 years
you all know what drunk bitch got

It's about INTENT.

but handbag guy didn't intend to kill did he? - if so I would have thought he might go a bit faster

Yeah but...he/they intended to rob and intentionally drove into her (and possibly her son) to get away.

FLATULENTFRIEND wrote:

bubbaa wrote:

FLATULENTFRIEND wrote:

Crashed wrote:Ok same crime same wepon different out come
WHY did a handbag snacher get charged and found guilty of Murder after he ran over the lady and drove off(hit &run), she was running after him to get her bag back .Maybe because he was a criminal?
WHY dont drink drivers get chraged with Murder when they kill a cyclest and drive off (hit&run)?There drunk behind the wheel which is a crime,so they to are criminals. The drunk and handbag snacher used the same weapon so WHY not the charges or outcome ?
Hand bag guy got 12 years
you all know what drunk bitch got

It's about INTENT.

but handbag guy didn't intend to kill did he? - if so I would have thought he might go a bit faster

Yeah but...he/they intended to rob and intentionally drove into her (and possibly her son) to get away.

I'm bored and arguementative - sorry
Buuut
he was punished for the outcome of his actions not the intent
he was punished for killing her - even though intent to kill was clearly not present

in the cases of cars v peds/cyslist /other cars frequently/always there was never any intent to kill but always there was a law broken.

whats the diff ?

nefarious motive versus indifference in the lesser crime?

[when there is neither intent or a law broken there are no charges laid (eg relative who ran over child on a bike or rather child rode under his wheels )]