Man has developed into a much informed person now. But it is debatable whether he is well informed or ill-informed.
Man invented concepts like the nation, religion and many such things. Health science developed by him has increased his longevity. Population grew and basic needs were not met for many. This led to the French and the communist revolutions. Still, sufferings of the majority are not mitigated in many parts of the world.
Scientifically man has developed tremendously. But socially his progress is pathetic. Man developed institutions such as schools, colleges and universities, institution of family and marriage for his betterment. But Lo! He is not able to live a peaceful and harmonious life. The very social institutions he developed are now posing great hurdles for his peaceful existence. Concepts like the nation, religion and castes have made man more and more parochial. He is not able to live free of conflicts and strife.
Nation and sovereignty concepts have created territorial disputes in the world. To protect his territory man developed dangerous weapons. Huge money spent on weapons even by poorer nations deprive people of a decent standard of life.
Concepts of nation, religion and castes have made man lose his humanistic instincts. He does not hesitate to kill others belonging to other religions or nations.
All this happens because of the fact that history of mankind was not properly recorded and lot of falsehood has crept into it. As a result man does not understand the true nature of his origin, migration and civilisation. Untruths spread in the name of religion, nation, caste and languages cause deep chasms between different religious, national, caste and linguistic groups.
Man has not become a human being. The social institutions have made him lose his conscience. Only when man becomes a human being, the fanaticism caused by religion, nation, language and castes will lose its grip over him. There is no alternative to this and this alone can avert not only the overt wars that cause large scale devastation but also the cold wars that cause erratic and foolish behaviour of the man

Dear Ezhill,

Nothing other than knowledge is going to save the planet
and humans and other animals that live in it. The time has
well and truly passed to rely on prayer, or the next
improbable solution - the laissez-faire market.
The renewable technologies we get excited about; the
carbon-neutral lifestyles we aim for are the invention of
humans, and their success depends on an understanding of
them and a wish to implement them. Only education will
provide the necessary means.

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo in misspelling your name.
It should have read - Ezhil.

Ezhil

Your ignorance/denial of your Creator and Saviour has led to this nonsensical rant. As for Foxy believing that more knowledge will solve issues, our foolish over funded education system proves that education without acknowledging God dumbs people down drastically.

[Man has developed into a much informed person now]

A man walks up to you in the street and says 'the answer is, 'to this is to that'....and walks off.....you've just been informed...of what you may well ask?
What is the question that I need to apply the answer to?
Therein lays the problem, we have a lot of answers but we are not aware of the questions they relate to...so what use is the information other than to confuse, so we walk around pretending to have all in hand because we don't want to appear as a dummy

Two rooms....both are filled with books....the same books, same information....
One has the books categorized and on shelves referenced, and in order,
the other has the books laying about helter skelter...

so, to your claim that man is a much informed person, which can be said to be true, however he lacks the discipline with which to use the information much like the state of 'the other room'....that in essence serves no purpose other than to confuse.
Remove it's presence and life becomes much simpler with greater clarity to perceive the needs of the moment.

Disclaimer:
These are my personal observations and there is no intention of displacing the greater minds and their views

On the first day of the new school year, all the
teachers in one private school received the
following note from their principal:

Dear Teacher:

I am a survivor of a concentration camp.
My eyes saw what no man should witness:

Gas chambers built by LEARNED engineers.
Children poisoned by EDUCATED physicians.
Infants killed by TRAINED nurses.
Women and babies shot and burned by
HIGH SCHOOL and COLLEGE graduates.

So, I am suspicious of education.

My request is: Help your students become human.
Your efforts must never produce learned monsters,
skilled psychopaths, educated Eichmanns.

Reading, writing, arithmetic are important only
if they serve to make our children more humane.

(Taken from Haim Ginott's book, "Teacher & Child:
A book for Parents and Teachers.").

Quoting Tor Hundloe, "From Buddha to Bono."

"Not to be too optimistic ...
we should recall that there are social, racial and
religious antagonisms even in the most easy-going
and friendly countries (such as Denmark and the
Netherlands). Many thinkers would argue that ignorance
is the major course of unpleasant, or criminal disconnects
between people. In extreme cases, terrorism aimed at
killing fellow humans exists and has to be explained.
The lack of exposure to other cultures leads to
narrow-mindedness and, worse, to an "us-them" divide."

"By definition, education is secular. Without knowledge of
what leading thinkers are doing and saying, supernatural
beliefs will remain unchallenged and an us-them divide
will destroy any vestiges of a common ground. A poor
understanding of one's own religion, let alone that of other
religions can lead to disputes that are avoidable."

"Most people, of all religious beliefs, have only a very
general comprehension of their religion as they are likely
to relate to those aspects which best suit their particular
personal philosophies. When culture and religion coalesce,
cultural practices get the benefit of religious
sanction regardless of the morality of the
cultural practice."

"If one finds peace and love in one's creed,
that is a positive result not just for the person in
question but also for society. But it is just as likely
that one will find war and hate in the same religion, and
cultural practices that diminish the role of women, to point
to a common situation."

"Of course ignorance (whether a result of narrow religious
teaching or cultural learning) is one determinant of
behaviour. It does not account for every aspect of human
behaviour. It does not account for self-interest. It is
important to recognise that -in every population of
people there is likely to be a proportion of very self-
interested people, as well as a majority of people who
are most capable of seeing the wisdom of living by a
golden-rule of co-operation and reciprocity. It is
necessary to recognise that there are people for whom
greed comes to supplant other human attributes and
aspirations."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Continuing from Tor Hundloe's book:

"It is one thing to rob if one is desperately poor,
another thing when material goods are abundant. To settle
this point consider the following -
The country of Australia was settled by so-called
"criminals" who might not have done anything more than
steal a loaf of bread for their desperate, hungry family.
On the other hand we are only too aware of the truly
titanic business frauds of the 20th century (as with
Enron) and the fact that many "white collar" criminals
escape the law."

"We would if we read Charles Dickens, understand that the
so-called crimes of the desperately poor would have been
sanctioned by Jesus Christ.
The conventional wisdom is always open to
question."

What a load of rubbish.

Second that!

Yes. There has been a paucity of important, sensible topics here lately; but save us from this garbage, which appears to be copied straight from some weirdo publication. There is even a "But lo" in it!

The "Man has to become a human being" points to the lunacy that follows. We are human beings, you fool.

Well put Foxy, I understand where you are coming from. Social injustice has always been one of the greatest crimes perpetrated against humanity.
Are property right predominant over human rights?

Seen on a car-sticker:

The bigger the hat
the smaller the property.

Hi there FOXY...

They were several most interesting Posts you provided us with, and for the most part, I'd agree 'in principle' with much that was advanced. Being the less learned soul that I am, I can only look at the broader picture, therefore I don't fully comprehend the precise nuances, these erudite scholars; Haim GINOTT'S & Tor HUNDLOE are attempting to convey?

For two of our other esteemed contributes to described the content therein as being 'rubbish' (seconded by anor.) is an opinion to which they're entitled. However if one were to examine a little more closely, GINOTT'S and HUNDLOE'S text, they might perhaps recognise, that much of our historical British legal jurisprudence, has some basis in fact, in much of what these two have averred herein?

Myself, well I've spent most of my career in the gutter, an environment in which I'm comfortable and know relatively well - Nevertheless, even I can appreciate what it is these scholars are trying to impart to us. One thing is abundantly certain, they know much more than I, that's for sure? Thank you again FOXY for some exceptional quotations.

Dear Paul,

I'm so relieved that at least someone saw the point
that was being made and the reasons for giving the
quotations that I thought were so appropriate to
this topic from Prof. Tor Hundloe's book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability."

How on earth anyone can describe Prof. Hundloe's
work as "absolute rubbish," is beyond my understanding.
It's ignorance and narrow-mindedness of the highest order.
Especially when they obviously have not read the work.
Were the written words so hard for them to comprehend?

Today we desperately seek solutions to climate change,
water scarcity, pollution, and Third World poverty.
But in order to go forward, first we must go back.

"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability,"
traces
the development of the three key disciplines under-
pinning modern environmental decision-making, otherwise
known as sustainability science: ecology, economics and
ethics. It illustrates how these disciplines, singularly and
in concert, will need to be applied in the 21st century
if true sustainability is to be achieved.

It also explores the ideas of the great thinkers and activists
who have helped put sustainability on the cultural and
political map.

In 2003, Prof. Tor Hundloe was the first Australian
recognised by the award of an Order of Australia for his
development and practice of an economics in line with
ecological reality and ethical imperatives.

Professor Tor Hundloe opens up the world to anyone wanting to
better understand how we got into this mess - and how to get
out of it.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You so much for your kind words and for
your understanding. You always know how to
encourage people and give them wings.
And that is so rare. Your life experience spans
worlds of human experience and human pain. You
have always used your knowledge and courage to
take what you have learned to try and put things
right. I am so grateful for your contributions
to this forum.

Yep educate people how important life is and then murder the unborn. They call it modern education.

Ezhil,

Early humans were divided into clans that fought continuously. In the last few hundred years, the number of people dying in warfare as % has slowly diminished to the lowest point in history. The very concept of human rights is a recent innovation.

Things have been getting better, not worse, and communism and Fascism were aberrations that killed millions.

People will fear and ridicule that what they don't understand. Suspicion of other cultures and peoples gives rise to negative stereotyping, prejudices, hatred even acts of violence towards groups who are perceived as different ethnically, socially and or culturally. There is nothing new in that, it is well documented throughout history, and continues in the world today.
That is not to say we in our modern western society should ignore problems and dangers associated with particular groups within our society, to do so would be foolhardy in the extreme. However, we do need to establish a balance between the extremes if we are going to deal effectively with issues that confront us.
Foxy's posts makes the valid point that it is through educating ourselves to the realities of other cultures, and dismissing the baseless negativity we have created in our own culture, then progress can be made towards a more harmonious existence. Religion is a leading determinate in what influences our thinking both positively and negatively.

To quote; "If one finds peace and love in one's creed,
that is a positive result not just for the person in
question but also for society. But it is just as likely
that one will find war and hate in the same religion

Dear Paul,

British educator Susan Bassnet writes:

"Education is about teaching children to grow
up into adults who will take some responsibility
for the world they inhabit, and who therefore
will understand why they cast their votes in
elections; why concern about climate change is
essential; why preventive healthcare matters;
why history remains relevant in modern society;
why it is important to learn about how other
cultures operate in a globalised, computer-driven,
but also divided world."

Perhaps above all, education is about teaching
people who to think and how to question what they
see and hear.

http://humaneeducation.org/blog/2009/education-must-be-the-key-to-creating-a-better-world/

My distant relative was sent on a convict ship for stealing a sheep, (and had I been alive at the time I may have helped him) maybe things were different back them but I don't see why I should tolerate or have pity on theives in this day and age.
The government takes from every worker to make sure no one goes without already.
Take this Elijah story where a young aboriginal kid was killed and a caucasion man was jailed for running him over on a motorbike he owned after the kid stole it...
The left is saying he should've went to jail for longer, but no-one is asking why aboriginal kids think its normal to steal from white people, why their parents teach them that its ok to steal...
In America they carry on with the same BLM stuff, but the real truth is if a black person went into Atlanta or Chicago and tried to steal from another black person there they wouldn't be calling the police, they'd be laying be laying dead in the street.
And so black people steal from white people because they see whites as easy targets and then cry racist when caught.
I watched a Mark Latham video today and he pointed to a story where jobs are being advertised for Female Police OIC's. They are specifically asking for women due to a push for diversity, rather than merit.
I hardly recognise this country its changing so fast.

AC, your ancestor was most like transported for being a poor member of the wrong social class, the stealing of a sheep was a pretext to rid British society of that time, of one more undesirable.

"The government takes from every worker to make sure no one goes without already." Without what?

"Take this Elijah story where a young aboriginal kid was killed and a caucasion man was jailed for running him over on a motorbike he owned after the kid stole it." On face value are you saying if someone steals your property, you have the right to take their life in exchange?

The black Americans you are going on about, are they the product of the stealing of black Africans by white Americans?

"And so black people steal from white people because they see whites as easy targets" Is the boot on the other foot now.

"I watched a Mark Latham video" Latham seems to be trying to make himself the new messiah of the far right, failed at everything else he's tried, may as well give that a go.

Dear Paul,

That young Aboriginal boy did not steal the bike.
The bike had been discarded and dumped outside of
town where other bikes were left and dumped.
The white guy deliberately ran the young boy down.
Killed the young boy and walked free.

Dear Foxy,

I like your quotes of Tor Hundloe.

---

Dear Paul,

«Are property right predominant over human rights?»

How can one have human rights without property rights?
If you reside on another's property (private or communal, it really makes no difference), then you are subject to the whims of the owner(s).
If your clothes, food and shelter can be taken away by others, then you must become a beggar and subject yourself to their rules.

Owning property is practically the best, if not the only, way to try to secure your freedom and dignity.

---

Dear Ezhil,

I still didn't have the time to comment and do justice to your topic.

In a word, there is confusion and sloppy inter-mixing between humans and us. Humans are mere objects: highly functional objects, but meaningless and dead on their own. The importance of a human arises when s/he serves us by allowing us to become conscious of the world through him/her.

While humans are limited, we should not identify with them, but rise above and beyond the human that we currently happen to be working and experiencing the world through.

Time allowing, I will focus on your specific statements in the light of distinguishing between statements about ourselves and statements about our humans.

Runner
You were created by your parents and not by anybody else. Let us understand our origin properly , then most of our misconceptions will vanish paving the way for a peaceful living.

Fanaticism caused by religion is the most important reason for the turmoil we see on this earth.

Dear Ezhil,

«You were created by your parents and not by anybody else.»

The above a classical example of confusing one's body with oneself:

What was created by the said parents is Runner's human body, not the actual one who we currently refer to as "Runner".

That which Runner truly is, beyond its appearance as a human, was never created, is not subject to time and will never be changed or destroyed.

ezhil

All human wars are between two or more ethnic groups over conquest of land and countries and the territorial survival resources they provide.

Country taking wars, civil wars,wars demanding separatist states. militia wars
are all about control. Control of land and resources.
Religions, especially the strict fundamentalist kind, don't intermarry outside their
religion, so they too become tribes or bloodlines alter 1oy 2 generations.
Religions too, constantly try to take control of countries.

The land provides everything we need as human beings to survive.
Many tribes have found themselves being genocided to the point of near extinction
after they have lost control of their land and survival resouces.

It's hard enough for human beings to provide for their children and their immediate families. This takes a lifetime of work and access to territorial resouces.
Those survival goods dont just magically appear in Woolworths stores overnight,
they are coming from the environment somewhere.,

Humans don't have the energy or resources to provide for anyone but their nearest bloodline, family, and, their tribe because of the closer relationship through generations of intermarriage.

This is simply the law of nature. The parent cells look after the young and the tribe around them who give them protection and are themselves more closely related than any other bloodline in the world.
It's the cycle of life, and our only genetic immortality on this earth.
The animals dance to this circle of biology and so do we humans and we will go to war
to defend the territory that provides for our progenies survival into the future.

We will also TAKE territory with armies too.
We may feel compassion and sadness when seeing innocent people dying in wars,
but normally, there is only a real pouring out of grief, when it is our own countrymen who die.
We do not like other big tribes on our territory. Racism is a sign of territorial hostility.
Its a biological survival instinct.
The territorial instinct, like the sexual instinct, are the two big survival instincts hard-wired into every species on earth Hence all the human warfare throughout history.

Foxy,

You are being fast and loose with the facts of the case. The aboriginal boy was riding a motorbike that had been very recently stolen. That it was picked up from a dumping site was possible but unlikely, and that Elijah immediately tried to ride away once the owner spotted him meant that he not only knew that the bike was stolen, but that he had no intention of relinquishing it.

That the owner pursued him was entirely within his rights especially given that the police seldom acted on these thefts. That the owner drove recklessly is not in dispute, but there is no evidence that he deliberately hit the thief.

That is why there is a trial by jury and not by popular opinion.

Hi Foxy, I had a read up on the Elijah case and given the outcome, one would think it must have took place in Alabama in 1962.

Hi Shadow, I doubt the perpetrator applied any of that mitigating logic of yours, not that it matters. instead he simply, malicious and willfully, ran the kid over, and killed him. This type of vigilante justice has been encouraged in the Kalgoorlie/Boulder area for sometime, the wife having posted on the vigilante 'Facebook'page “Kalgoorlie crimes whinge and whine” which contained this recommendation “We don’t encourage calling the police any more,” a post in January 2015 said. “We encourage our stronger members or members who have several males in the house to sort it out themselves”. The perpetrator admitted "the adrenaline was pumping" as he pursued the boy. This bloke tried to apply vigilante justice and given the outcome, should be serving a much longer sentence.

Hypothetical: I wounder if you would be applying that mitigating logic of yours, if it had been, instead of a young Aboriginal boy on the bike, it had been, say... Prince Harry. Would the outcome have been the same. I doubt it.

Paul,

If Prince Harry was fleeing the site of a crime on a stolen motorbike and died by misadventure in the process I would not care a jot more, and if an aboriginal man had run down a white child, I guess that you would be suggesting community service?

Elijah's death was a tragedy and should not have happened, but Elijah is far from blameless and it was his theft of the bike that set in motion the chain of events that led to his demise.

That the owner of the bike drove recklessly is not in dispute, but the claim that he deliberately drove over the boy is pure conjecture on your part and the jury found no compelling evidence either. That you want him convicted without evidence because he is white and you want restitution for other perceived crimes is in itself racist.

Hi Paul,
The Elijah case is interesting and controversial and probably deserved it's own thread.
My grandmother was half-indigenous and I know the stories of her familys hardships and persucution, so don't try to play any of that white guilt on me, it doesn't work.
I'm only interested in the facts and to look at each side fairly.

You're most likely right in saying that my ancestor, of (Scottish decent) was a poor member of the wrong social class. No doubt if he had money or food of his own for his family or whatever the circumstances were, he most likely would not have been stealing sheep, if he did in fact do so, which he probably did.

Today we live in a more modern and civilised society, and every man, woman and child is allowed the benefits of welfare, which covers the cost of food, clothing, a roof over one's head, medicine, education.
So in effect, there's no real excuse for stealing.

15 or 16 is a difficult age though, especially if you come from a lower class demographic, I'll even admit that I used to often steal things at that age too.

But does a person have the right to protect their own property?
I say they do, even more so if the police themselves are going to throw their hands in their air and not address the problem.

The more someone keeps getting away with it, (stealing) the more likely they are to keep doing it, right?

What if a black person had the same point of view as me?
http://youtu.be/x3cm6_dp4M

You ask are those black americans the product of the stealing from black americans by white americans?
Is the boot on the other foot now?

What exactly do those questions mean?
Are you condoning or giving a free pass to criminal behavior?

Is your 'mindset' a continuation of the bs, justifying the other sides criminal behavior'?
(like a leftist would, seemingly supportive of anarchy)
-Or do you instead hope for fairness and mutually beneficial solutions to all parties moving forward?

Watch the video

Sorry, I typed the address wrong, it was 2 underscores, not 1...
http://youtu.be/x3cm6__dp4M

Foxy, you are wrong. The boy in Kalgoorlie did steal the bike. Even his own grandfather admitted that, in fact his comment to reporters was that " Elijah has stolen his last bike".
As for being deliberately run over, no one can say that. The evidence shows the bike swerved in front of the vehicle, and as, the driver admitted, he was driving too fast and too close, and thus was unable to stop.
As tragic as this case is, no one seems to have taken anything from it except produce more racist comments.
Where are the calls for aboriginal parents in Kalgoorlie to use this example as a wake up call for better parenting, for better school attendance. If Elijah had been at school that day he would still be alive now.
I can guarantee all the white victims of these constant robberies of their property have learnt a lesson from this!

"the claim that he deliberately drove over the boy is pure conjecture"

Shadow, please provide evidence that at the time Elijah "was fleeing the site of a crime on a stolen motorbike" What crime had the boy committed, and what evidence did the perpetrator have to believe he could administer vigilante justice in the way he did? What was the perpetrators intent? Considering the perpetrator could be out of jail as early as next January, begs the question did he get off lightly, and why? Consider also those that drive their motor vehicles recklessly causing death, often receive a much harsher penalty.

Here is a link that gives another perspective on
the Elijah Doughty case:

http://newmatilda.com/2017/07/23/groundhog-day-elijah-doughty-joins-a-long-list-of-deaths-with-no-justice/

It is worth a read. I know that some people will
object to this not being from the usual Main Stream
Media sources - but it's good to read
more than one viewpoint being presented.

' That young Aboriginal boy did not steal the bike.
The bike had been discarded and dumped outside of
town where other bikes were left and dumped.
The white guy deliberately ran the young boy down.
Killed the young boy and walked free.'

Foxy you are passing on a blatant lie! The whole event was very tragic but to push the lies that Matilda and other leftist organisations have is disgraceful The man was simply trying to get back his stolen bike which the police failed to do. This man now has to live with the fact that his anger, the police failure and the perpetual lies from the aboriginal industry will haunt him. He did what many would of done and tried to retrieve his bike. To demonise him further is an utter disgrace and you should know better. There are a number of inconvenient truths that the aboriginal industry will not face up to.

I am pleased that we have Big Nana with us to pull white do-gooders into line in the matter of indigenous affairs.

If it were known that members of the local community were advocating to 'deal with the problem themselves' and also the fact police directed the man who was a victim of theft to 'go look for his bike himself' then that says a lot.

Why were there not more police resources placed into protecting people who were victims of burglary and theft and in recovering slolen property.
What onus were on they police actions when they told him to 'go look for it himself'?
What did they think was going to happen?
And what do indigenous think is going to happen if they steal?
What do their parents teach them?
That its ok to steal or that it's justified behavior for whatever reason or normal and that there are no consequences?

If the kid hadn't touched that which did not belong to him he'd be alive.
I'm sad Elijah paid with his life, it's a high price to pay.

If we resort to argue and blame rather than look at the deeper issues and learn from it then he really did die for nothing.

The parents should stop drinking, and the kids should stop stealing.

Hi there RUNNER...

Once, there was an offence some time back, described as 'theft by finding'. The classic example probationary coppers were given in the Academy:- an individual finds a wallet, and fails to hand it in.

The same circumstances could be applied to a bike. Because it looks abandoned, it doesn't mean lawful ownership is automatically transferred to the finder? There's a legal process to be followed.

The bi-annual 'hard rubbish' collecting by our Councils - We often see blokes examining and pilfering articles from the piles of hard rubbish, and throwing it into the back of their ute. Some are amazed as to why they're being arrested for theft?

The facts are; once the householder places 'hard waste' at the curbside, it's now taken that ownership has been transferred to the relevant Council. Whereupon the council has transferred their ownership of that rubbish, to the Contractor who won the Council Tender, to remove that rubbish. The pilferer, in law, is actually stealing from the Contractor who's job it is to remove that rubbish!

I'm unaware of the circumstances associated with the Bike - however if the individual in his defence, claims he thought the bike was abandoned, then in law his defence would fail.

Dear Cherful,

Thank you for your excellent summary of the human condition.

«It's hard enough for human beings to provide for their children and their immediate families.»

Yes, because there are so many of them!
So why do they continue to multiply?

«It's the cycle of life, and our only genetic immortality on this earth.»

There is no immortality on this earth. Nothing here is immortal including our genes.

«The territorial instinct, like the sexual instinct, are the two big survival instincts hard-wired into every species on earth»

Right, but there is no need for us to become the servants of those instincts and of the genes that shaped them. The genes did not create these instincts for our good, but for their own selfish agenda.

«Religions too, constantly try to take control of countries.»

By that time, however, they have ceased to be religions and turned into something else.

---

Dear O Sung Wu,

«once the householder places 'hard waste' at the curbside, it's now taken that ownership has been transferred to the relevant Council.»

And that council is supposed to be representing "us", ordinary residents - what a joke: had it been the will of the residents, surely their council would have allowed anyone who has a use for what others discarded to freely take what they need.

Hi there YUYUTSU...

They are indeed supposed to be serving the will and the needs of their ratepayers. Apparently, when Council announce Tenders for this and that, part of defraying the actual cost for removing and properly disposing the hard rubbish, is to allow the various Tenderers to avail themselves, to all the various 'bits' they can salvage or strip from the mechanisms of many of these old items, that have been discarded.

I've no idea how it's computed into the contract, whether it's per tonne, or square metres, or what. But a lot of discarded electrical equipment does have certain precious metals built-in eg copper wire, even minute quantities of gold (I was once informed?), together with other 'bit's 'n pieces' that makes scavenging it, worthwhile for all concerned by all accounts. I reckon my ol' mate HASBEEN would know, 'whats what' with much of this stuff?

You're so right YUYUTSU; whether it's Local, State or Federal Governments, they're all essentially corrupt, if not in the criminal sense, certainly morally.

Friends, let man be different from the rest. That is how we can differentiate ourselves as human beings.As long as the fanatic ideas persist there will be repetition of barbaric atrocities.Civilised people should be able to see things beyond the borders and narrow parochial mindset.

Foxy,

The impression that I get from the blog is that the driver needs to pay for "injustices" from up to 25yrs ago.

The facts are that there is no evidence that the Ute driver made any attempt to collide with the motorbike which makes it impossible to convict on the charge of manslaughter.

Paul for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Elijah_Doughty
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/elijah-doughty-jury-out-for-second-day-in-manslaughter-trial/news-story/cfd30b665c0f4e5a4243ea516271ec88

"The driver was the owner of the stolen motorcycle which Doughty was riding. He had followed Doughty in his Nissan Navara ute along a dirt-track in the Gribble Creek area of Boulder. A collision subsequently took place in which Doughty was killed after suffering severe injuries to his neck, chest, pelvis and right leg.

The ute driver was charged with manslaughter and pleaded not guilty after his offer to plead guilty to the lesser charge of dangerous driving causing death was rejected by the state.

During the trial, the ute driver, who cannot legally be identified, stated he had not intended to hit Doughty and claimed that Doughty had "veered in front of him". The driver admitted however he could not prevent the collision because he was driving too close to the motorbike."

Paul,

It is now up to you to provide evidence to support your claim that the bike wasn't stolen, or that the ute driver deliberately drove over the thief.

Of course, if the police did their job instead of simply advising the driver to look for his stolen bike at the dump or if Elijah had not stolen the bike, the ute driver might not have been left no option but to go looking for the bike himself.

It is plainly clear that the fact that a bike was stolen, police failed to act as they should and a man in accidently kills a boy who should of been at school and had a very dubious past should speak for itself. Unfortunatley it does not fit the racist leftist narrative. The driver here was just as much a vicitm and now even more so than others who love to drum up the victim industry.

Here we are arguing the legal responsibility of a 12 year old boy, sounds like something straight out of a Charles Dickens novel. What concerns me is how some give great emphasis to the rights of the property owner, over the human rights of the individual. The fact is the perpetrator seen fit to take the law into his own hands, and in his attempt to administer vigilante justice killed another human being. There should be no leniency shown, just the opposite, a clear message must be sent that there in no place in our society for those who would take the law into their own hands, vigilante justice and all.

Hi o sung wu; "The bi-annual 'hard rubbish' collecting by our Councils - We often see blokes examining and pilfering articles from the piles of hard rubbish, and throwing it into the back of their ute. Some are amazed as to why they're being arrested for theft?
Why would you bother arresting some emu picking through the rubbish? I am at this very moment looking at a blue glass bottle, I must say, a very nice bottle, you know who, picked out of someones clean up, she does those sorts of things. The funnest one I ever seen was a bloke trying to shift a big old lounge chair, by balancing it on his bicycle, without a great deal of success, but he was persistent.
Laws that make it an offence to be poor, have been around since Roman times. The Romans would feed beggars to the lions.

Hi Shadow; I'm not buying a subscription to your Murdoch gutter press, no thanks for the link.

Paul,

More unsubstantiated waffle and false facts from you.

1 Elijah was 14, not 12
2 I was not discussing Elijah's legal responsibility, rather his actions. However:
" From 14 to either 17 or 18 years (depending on jurisdiction), young offenders may be held fully responsible for their criminal acts but are subject to a different range of criminal sanctions than adults committing the same offences" So young Elijah was well on his way to a life of crime.
3 A man has the right to retrieve his property and attempting to do so does not make him a vigilante. Look up the definition.

A majority of the quotes I provided were not from the Australian. However, I guess that real facts offend you because they expose your lynch mob motivations.

Shadow, one has a right to defend oneself, and a right to retrieve ones property, both within reason. What one does not have is a right to dole out vigilante justice. I can understand the anger of people when their property rights are violated, and their demands for justice, only natural. Obviously there are major problems in this community, as there is elsewhere, with disadvantage. For too long the hard liners have demanded the big stick approach, without ever really addressing the root causes of the problems. I don't have the answers, but sure as hell a bloke charging after a youth in his 4WD, to do what, we don't know, which resulted in the lads death is also not the answer. The question here is as a result of that action, what should have been the outcome, was it fair, was it reasonable. From one extreme where some want to pin a medal on this bloke, to the other where some want him strung up. The balance is to administer justice, and at the same time send a message to the community what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior. Hopefully this case will be a wake up call to government that much more has to be done on their part if this sort of behavour is not going to become systemic in this and other communities. What is your opinion?

Dear Paul,

«What is your opinion?»

My opinion is that while the law should not be able to prevent or punish that "bloke" for pursuing the thief on his own property, that act was wrong and this bloke will be punished for it sooner or later - if not in this life then thereafter.

However, creating the uncertainty for thieves, not knowing in advance the nature and mood of their victim, even if such violent reactions be rare as should, can be a good deterrent to help prevent crimes.

Hi there PAUL1405...

Quite so my friend, quite so. I should've made myself clearer, I was explaining the technical nuances of the law, rather than a practice most wallopers wouldn't have any truck with. To be honest with you, I've never heard of police becoming involved with any issues to do with hard rubbish? Garage sales, for sure. Anyway I would've thought it's more within a Council Ranger's purview, not something the police would concern themselves with?

Any law that makes it an offence to be poor would be absolutely odious to me. There's a world of difference between being poor, and being subject to the old Vagrancy Act. We were poor, it was my fists (boxing) as I've mentioned herein previously, and military discipline that kept me on the straight and narrow; otherwise...?

Therefore your sentiments apropos the poor - I totally support Paul, as would most coppers. As evidenced when still in uniform, on most night shifts we'd cruise slowly through City's parks, where I've often witnessed many a copper give-up all his snacks, coffees, Cokes etc. to the 'down 'n out' old chats, who sleep and often die, on park benches all their lives. Never cash, that goes straight to 'plonk', if the Pub's still open.

To nightly observe the deplorable ignominy of Sydney's City Council, who continue to allow these poor and wretched human beings, (most of whom are alcoholic and mentally ill as well) to barely exist, without even the basics of human necessities - that's the real crime, Paul.

I've seen a lot of death in my time, and there's none so sad than to see a totally abandoned, homeless individual, who's dies alone while sleeping among the City's detritus on some cold wet night.

Paul,

Look at it from the P.O.V. of the ute driver. As he is not particularly well off, the investment in a small dirt bike of about $3000 is several months discretionary spending. To firstly have a juvenile criminal simply help himself to his treasured possessions is heartbreaking enough, and then report it to the police, only to be told to go and look for it yourself is devastating.

He then locates the stolen bike, only to have the thief attempt to flee with it. The chase to catch the little delinquent is entirely understandable, except he goes too far and the juvenile crook is killed.

He is charged and convicted of dangerous driving and gets 3 years, which for a man with a family and no previous offences is a severe punishment. Next, we have the local Aboriginal community and every left whinge activist baying at the moon for him to be convicted of murder.

Due process was served and calling for additional punishment because he's white is pure racism.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Where does the young lad fit into your scenario?

Any feelings for him and his family?

to pretend the driver isn't remorsefull and feeling terribly sick about the outcome just demonstrates how deceitful, conniving and ignorant those who hold to warped narratives our.

Dear Foxy,

Imagine it was not just a motorbike, which could be bought for some $$s: imagine for example that the owner had in that stolen bike the only remaining photos of his late mother, which he was about to take somewhere to enlarge; or perhaps even her very ashes; or some important and irretrievable documents; or perhaps a disk with the names/addresses/phones of all his friends and relatives, without which he would become contactless; or perhaps some medication, brought from afar, which he needed to take every day or else... I'm sure you could also add to this list some items that are particularly precious to you, which you would have been yourself ready to kill a thief to retrieve.

Yes, it's revolting to hear that someone was killed for something that could have been replaced with mere money, but then we also heard of cases where cars were stolen with babies in the back-seat (without the thief even noticing): where would this end? Did the thief really care? Did he ever checked was else was there in the bike?

It is good for thieves to know that there is some chance they might incur the death penalty (combined with a larger chance of corporal punishment, for example if they fall off the bike and are injured). It's not that the actual death penalty is good, but rather the fear of the thief that there is some positive probability for it to be applied, at least if something that cannot be bought for money was stolen, at least that can make the thief check carefully what else they take.

Regarding such items that can be replaced with money, the onus should be on the police to replace them if they fail in their duty to catch the thief.

«Any feelings for him and his family?»

That same family which failed to teach him not to steal and also that he could die if he steals? The knowledge that he COULD die (or be injured) would actually help the thief and his family by saving them from a criminal life.

Foxy,

As I've said before, the accident was a tragedy, as is always the loss of a young life. However, given the lynch mob from the left that wants to punish the Ute driver irrespective of the facts, I have tried to focus on the facts of the case, not feelings.

Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no evidence that
Elijah Doughty stole the motorbike, nor that
he even knew it was stolen.

The owner had been told the previous day by police
that stolen bikes often get dumped in a reserve
out of town and so the next day, he parked near
the reserve, turned his engine off, wound his
window down to listen out for bikes and he waited.

Eventually, Elijah rode past. The man took off in
pursuit, driving a large Nissan Navara 4WD ute.

Less than a minute later - around 30 or so seconds
Elijah Doughty was dead. In addition to massive
internal injuries, his spinal cord was severed at
the base of his brain, killing him instantly.

Responding police vehicles and an ambulance drove
over the tracks left by the Navara, which made piecing
together what happened much more difficult. In the end,
investigators had to rely heavily on the man's version
of events.

He did not have time to stop, he told the police.

The man's defence attorney, told the court, "Ultimately
it's the defence case had the bike not veered in front
(of the accused) this wouldn't have happened.

We might equally
argue that if the man had not driven so close to Elijah,
forcing him to veer, and had not
chased him so ardently, or taken the law into his own
hands, or if the local police had done their job in the
first place, rather than advise the man to go look for
himself- there might also have been a different outcome.

There seems little point in debating the outcome.
The sentence will likely not be appealed. Justice
has been done, say authorities. Move on.

I felt it important to simply bring up the subject of
what Elijah's family must be going through - instead of
just reading about the blame being heaped on Elijah.
A man killed a 14 year old child over a
motorcycle, and will serve, at most, 3 years behind
bars. Less if he gets out on parole.

I don't feel that justice has been done.

http://newmatilda.com/2017/07/23/groundhog-day=elijah-doughty-joins-a-long-list-of-deaths-with-no-justice/

cont'd ...

Dear Yuyutsu,

Mu apologies for the typo. Here's the link again from which
I cited:

http://newmatilda.com/2017/07/23/groundhog-day-elijah-doughty-joins-a-long-list-of-deaths-with-no-justice/

Foxy,

As Elijah was not in trial, the actual circumstances that led him to be in possession of the bike were not investigated in detail, as they were irrelevant to the trial of the Ute driver.

However, Elijah was 14 riding a relatively new bike that had been stolen within 48hrs that he certainly didn't pay for. He may not have personally stolen the bike, but unless he was a complete moron, he must have known that it was stolen.

Similarly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the ute driver ever intended to hit Elijah, and your "feeling" that justice was not done has no basis in fact, only in prejudice.

Shadow, like in the Bolt incident, which you got totally wrong, you once more throw up a load of unsubstantiated conjecture. Trying to play the race card yourself with "calling for additional punishment because he's white is pure racism." Where have I linked his color with the outcome. I have raised the issue of property rights verses human rights, the problems of disadvantage, vigilante behavior and how it should be dealt with. Where is the racism? Was the unidentified perpetrator "white" I didn't consider that relevant.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The man took the law into his own hands and had
he not done so there might have been a different
outcome. If the local police had done their job
in the first place rather than advise him to go
look for himself - again there might also have been
a different outcome. A 14 year old child suddenly
veered in front of the large 4WD, and then
disappeared under it and the man did not have time
to stop? He should not have been that close to the
rider of the motorbike. Investigators also had to
rely heavily on the man's version of events.

In a Perth Court the man was found guilty of the
lesser offence of "dangerous driving causing death,"
(not even manslaughter) and sentenced to 3 years
jail. He may only serve one year if he gets out
on parole.

Elijah Doughty's family will have to make peace with
the fact that the man who killed their 14 year old child
will serve, at most, 3 years behind bars.
And they'll have to make peace in a climate of collective
indifference to their suffering.

You may feel that justice has been done.

I don't.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the link:

I wrongly thought that the owner pursued Elijah on his own property, in which case he should have been able to do what he likes - though he would still eventually be punished for it by divine justice.

The fact that the event took place on a public road, where the state has jurisdiction, changes things and the charge of dangerous driving seems appropriate. Rest assured that if this charge is insufficient, then the owner will still be punished for the balance anyway, so why worry about it?

Paul,

You brought up race in the very first comment on the issue:

"Hi Foxy, I had a read up on the Elijah case and given the outcome, one would think it must have taken place in Alabama in 1962."

Every left whinge article dredges up ancient injustices against Aboriginals as a justification for a lynch mob, so don't post such BS. If the child had been white, we wouldn't have heard one peep from the left whingers.

Foxy,

You don't "feel" that justice has been done? What's the alternative? You freely admit that there is no evidence to contradict the ute driver's account and that he was convicted and sentenced on that basis. So what would you consider to be "justice"?

And the term "taking the law into his own hands" implies that the ute owner was breaking the law in pursuing a criminal fleeing with his stolen property.

Hi Shadow, why do you claim Elijah was a criminal in this matter, where is your evidence? Just as you had no evidence against those you accused in the Bolt incident, you have no evidence against the boy. Even if he was Al Capone, the perpetrator had no right to take the law into his own hands, and act like a vigilante, causing death.
Why did I mention Alabama 1962, because travesties of justice were also common in that place in that year, there is a parallel. Given the sentences often imposed by the courts on reckless drivers who cause death, this one seemed rather light. The action of deliberately pursuing another person, which in most other cases of reckless driving causing death is not a consideration, was not considered when sentencing. Why? Because it was this blokes property that was involved, and property take precedent over life. Someone even put a value on it, I think $3,000, I don't care if the bike was worth $3,000 or $3 million, life is of greater value.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The alternative action would have been - for the man not
to take the law into his own hands. For the local police
to do their job - and then there might have been a
different outcome.

Also the responding police vehicles and an ambulance
drove over the tracks left by the Navara 4WD, which
made piecing together what happened much more difficult.
In the end, investigators had to rely heavily on the
man's version of events - that Elijah suddenly veered
in front of the 4WD, and then disappeared under it.
Nobody asked what the 4WD was doing driving so close
to the motorbike rider for that to have happened?
Why didn't the driver of the 4WD have time to stop,
as he told police. Had the driver been further back
this would not have happened. It would not have
happened if the driver had given the child some space.
Had the driver been drinking?

In any case, regardless, the man's version of events
appears to be the one that police accepted.
So again, I say for all those reasons - I don't think
that justice was done. In any case there is little
point in debating this outcome. It's no likely to be
appealed. Justice has been done, say authorities.
Move on.

It's one or the other Foxy, not both.
If the local police did their job, there would be no reason for the citizen to take the law into his own hands (to search for and try to retrieve his stolen goods)

The kid would be alive, and the bloke would also not be in jail.
What about his kids, are they reasonably and genuinely expected to be racist now?
I wouldn't blame them if they were.
Also if the kids parents didn't allow him to avoid school and consider racial theft to be normal, the the situation would also have been avoided.
I blame the government first, Elijah's parents second, and I allocate little blame to the driver of the vehicle who himself was a victim, of the other previous failures.

I blame government incompetence and failure to act on an issue known to them.

Potiticians should be in jail for this, as well as Elijah's parents not the driver of the car who was told by police (who should be demoted and reprimanded) to go look for his stolen stuff himself in the place it was expected to be found after a crime had been committed.

Paul,

You open your mouth and expose your hypocrisy. You claim that Elijah can't be called a criminal for lack of evidence but are quite happy to declare the ute driver guilty of murder "he simply, malicious and willfully, ran the kid over, and killed him".

The fact that Elijah was in possession of stolen property has been proved, and in itself is a criminal offense, so you are wrong on both accounts. All three if your amnesia to the thugs attacking Bolt posting their injuries on an Intifa blog was evidence of them being left whinge fascists.

Foxy,

I admire the skillful way you completely failed to answer the question. I asked what was the alternative to convicting and sentencing based on the evidence.

The courts have a quaint way of dealing with criminal cases by asking the jury to come to a verdict based on the facts and evidence available and not considering other factors such as ancient injustices and peoples' feelings.

Paul,

I don't think that there is a single society that does not put some value on personal property and taking someone else's property is not a crime. Similarly, citizens have limited power to protect and retrieve their property. The concept of a citizen's arrest is pretty much universal, and the reasonable action to pursue and restrain them before calling the police is entirely legal in Aus.

The issue is not whether the bike was worth $3 or $3m, it was entirely possible for the ute driver to legally pursue the criminal without injuring him. The sentence the driver got was for driving in a reckless way which enabled the accident to occur at which point the theft and reason for pursuit became incidental.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The evidence is there for all to see.
The man (an adult) took matters into his own hands.
He took off in pursuit of a 14 year old child
driving a large Nissan Navara 4WD ute.

He drove so close to the kid that he was unable to
stop in time when the kid suddenly veered in front
of the 4WD, and then disappeared under it.

In addition to massive and internal injuries, the
kid's spinal cord was severed at the base of his
brain, killing him instantly.

And the man's defence as told to the court was -
"...had the bike not veered in front of him -
this wouldn't have happened." That's simply wrong.
Had he not been
hot on the kid's tail - this wouldn't have
happened. That's more accurate.

The FACTs remain that had the bloke in his great big
tank - not chased the kid in such hot pursuit,
driving almost on top of the kid and forcing him to
veer. Had the bloke given himself enough distance so
that he could have stopped - this would not have
happened. The bloke should have behaved like an ADULT.
He should have acted responsibly. He did neither
and the penalty should have been far harsher. The
penalty given was a joke.

Those are the facts as I see them.

Why were there no Indigenous people on the Jury?
Could they not find any?

In any case I don't care to continue going around in
circles with this discussion. We shall have to agree
to disagree on this. I am not prepared to
modify my judgement and neither are you. To continue
will achieve nothing productive.

Foxy,

You almost got there, but saying - "driving almost on top of the kid and forcing him to veer." Is still false. How do you know why Elijah veered?

You also clearly don't know how juries work. Jurors are selected for their ability to be unbiased and both the prosecution and defence can exclude jurors that have a bias or preconceived ideas.

Stacking the jury with friends and family of the deceased is generally considered a bad thing.

Dear Shadow Minister,

How do I know why Elijah veered?

Again the FACTS speak for themselves.

The driver of the 4WD told investigators that
Elijah was in front of his vehicle and that he suddenly
veered and disappeared under it. This to me indicates
that the driver of the 4WD was hot on Elijah's tail -
too close for comfort or safety -
and the driver also admitted that he
didn't have time to stop. That's what he told the police.

As for having family and friends on the Jury?
Now you are not being serious. My question regarding the
make-up of the jury was simply to wonder why they could
not have included a few Indigenous members (not family or
friends) in the mix. Your inference that Indigenous
people would be prejudiced in this case can't be taken
seriously. What all of them? Then surely the same can be
said for the all-white jurors - or are they all above
being prejudiced? Interesting.

Foxy,

At least you yielded that the Ute driver didn't force Elijah to veer across his path. However, he should not have driven so close which caused the accident for which he was convicted and punished.

Yes, I was joking wrt friends and family, but the selection of the jury is done by the judge, prosecutor and defence lawyer to weed out jurors with prejudices. To date, there is no requirement for racial quotas nor should there be.

It is entirely possible that an Aboriginal person could be unbiased, but with the Aboriginal protests outside, it would have been difficult.

Dear Shadow Minister,

A two-tonne 4WD did not cause a 70cc motocycle to
veer across its path while it was in hot pursuit
right on its tail?

Yeah, right!

I don't seriously think that's what you believe.

Anyway, moving on.

Nationwide demonstrations followed AFTER the 3 year
sentence was handed down. The protesters despite
being vocal did not exhibit any level of aggression
or violence. They were peaceful. Friends and relatives
held a candlelight vigil later on - it too was a
peaceful presence. Elijah Doughty's mother called for
the community to come together (both white and black)
and not seek any retribution.

So much for your theories.

Foxy,

So sarcasm is your last resort in a discussion?

Apart from the fact that it is physically impossible to force a bike to veer in any direction without contact, this assertion hasn't been raised by the prosecution in any article I've read, leaving me with the conclusion that you dreamed it up yourself.

Secondly, I was only postulating a scenario, most probably no aboriginals were selected in the random selection that the court uses. However, I'm surprised that you claim that there were no protests before or during the trial?

' The protesters despite
being vocal did not exhibit any level of aggression
or violence. '

no as far as Foxy is concerned the burning down of a house and then smashing up of a court house and several police injured is not violence because its from the left. And of course no one charged for burning down house. What a surprise. Foxy demonstrates clearly how her lying narrative keeps aboriginals poor except for those involved in the industry.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't use sarcasm. I state facts .

If you want to dispute what is being presented kindly
provide evidence that contradicts what I am finding.

A 14 year old boy was blatantly (and fatally) run over
in Kalgoorlie in 2016. I believe that protests took
place AFTER the court verdict was delivered.

In any other situation if it was an Indigenous man who
ran over a white child he would have been charged with
manslaughter minimum.

Does this not resonate with you SM?

Runner,

Please provide evidence to back your theories.
Otherwise your childish tactics of insults and
ad hominem attacks will not be taken seriously.

Foxy,

You have admitted that the account of the ute driver is the only evidence available yet are the one posting as "fact" something that is not supported in any form or fashion. Your facts are conjecture and fantasy.

Secondly, that the protests became more vociferous and violent after the judgement and sentencing is not in dispute, but to claim that there were no protests before the judgement is a blatant falsehood.

Finally, if an Aboriginal man had pursued a 14yr old criminal fleeing with his property and accidentally killed him, the verdict probably would be the same. Claiming otherwise is once again pure conjecture and fantasy.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What I have presented is neither conjecture nor
fantasy. The information is available freely on
the web.

Cheers.

Foxy,

The only facts you have presented contradict your conjecture that the driver forced the thief to veer. And having trawled through the topic, I have found several left whinge blogs that make the same assertion with the same complete lack of evidence.

For example, I believe that Elijah with some of his mates personally stole the bike based on the circumstances and his past record. However, I don't assert it as fact.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What I assert as fact - came out of the mouth of the
driver who has admitted that Elijah would not have
been killed had he not been driving so close to him.
That the accident would not have happened. And there's
more, but we've already covered that ground. I've told
you this information is on the web. It is not something
that I am making up. Whether you believe it or not - is
not my problem, but yours. And as for "Lefty sites?"
I don't regard the ABC as a "Lefty" site. But as I said -
that's your problem, not mine.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

Then we are both in furious agreement that the ute driver drove too close to the bike, and that there is no evidence that the ute driver "forced" the bike to veer in front of the ute.

Have a nice weekend.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'll try to make it clearer for you one last time.

The driver of the 4WD ute broke the law by not
following the road rules by driving too close
to the vehicle (in this case the bike) in front
leaving no room or time to avoid ANY likely
accident. Two wheel vehicles such as bicycles
and motocycles riding on uneven road surfaces
will uncontrollably deviate from a straight course.
Therefore the driver of the 4WD heavy vehicle
did not follow safe road regulations and is
responsible for the accident
death caused. And therefore
should have been prosecuted for killing the rider.

In short, the driver committed murder - knowing
full well the road rules and regulations and he set out
with full intention to punish the rider. The
charge of manslaughter would not have been appropriate
because of the obvious intent of the driver - who
set out to punish the rider of the motorcycle by
whatever means was at hand. But the court did not
even charge the driver with manslaughter - only
the lesser charge of dangerous driving which got the
driver a 3 year sentence - less if he gets out on
parole. Justice was not served - no matter how you
look at it.

Shadow, as one who clams to have studied the law (where?), reading your legal "onions" on this and other matters such as the Bolt case. Like the other Rumpole you have spent too much time at Pomeroy's Bar, instead of the Legal Bar. Foxy has convinced the jury, and you have lost yet another case.

'In short, the driver committed murder -'
factually wrong Foxy. You really don't mind twisting the truth to back your very sick narrative. Quite disgraceful for someone who claims not to be judgemental.

runner,

You're the reason God invented
the middle-finger.

cont'd ...

runner,

What I did say in the past was that unlike you
I did not "prejudge" people. I took them as I
found them and judged them by their actions.
And we all know that on this forum your actions
speak volumes.

Foxy,

Yet more conjecture! Suddenly you have become a mind reader and can tell what the driver thought without him stating it.

Your conjecture may be entirely right, however, the only person that would know it would be the ute driver. Juries can only convict on the evidence before them and even then the defendant is given the benefit of all reasonable doubt.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the driver intended to "punish" the thief, neither is there any evidence whatsoever that the driver directly caused the accident as contrary to your assertion, dirt bikes seldom uncontrollably veer in any direction on a dirt road, otherwise the life expectancy of dirt bike riders would be very short.

Paul,

As the jury came back with a unanimous not guilty of manslaughter, I think it is clear that the prosecution had no case.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I see that there's no point in discussing this
matter any further.

Have a nice day.

cont'd ...

It is not conjecture when a person's actions
speak for themselves. And there is plenty of
evidence on the behaviour of bikes on unsurfaced
roads - especially 70cc motocycles that are being
set upon by two-tonne 4WD's.

As for what the jury found? Unfortunately responding
police vehicles and an ambulance drove over the
tracks left by the two-tonne 4WD Navara, which made
piecing together what happened much more difficult.
In the end, investigators HAD to rely heavily on the
driver's version of events.

You can argue all you want. The fact remains that had
the man not taken the law into his own hands, or if
the local police had done their job in the first place,
rather than advice the man to go look for himself,
had the man not driven so close to the bike rider,
so that he could have had time to stop, there might
have been a different outcome.
And that is not conjecture.

Dear Shadow Minister,

BTW:

The jury's conclusion was based on conjecture.
After all it was formed on the basis of
incomplete information.
They had to take the man's version of events.

Foxy,

Either you struggle with the English language or how the legal system works or both. The job of the prosecutor is to prove to the jury that the defendant is guilty of an offence. The job of the jurors is to determine whether the evidence provided is sufficient to prove the guilt of the defendant.

In this case, the jury came to the unanimous decision that there wasn't enough evidence to convict the ute driver of manslaughter. That is not conjecture but a reasoned decision on the facts available.

Dear Shadow Minister,

CONJECTURE -

Noun -

An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete
information.

Verb -

Form an opinion or supposition about (something)
on the basis of incomplete information.

All the jury could do was conjecture with what
they had.

Foxy,

As I said, you seem to be struggling with the definition of conjecture and what a jury is supposed to do:

conjecture

noun
1.
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3.
to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

The jury's duty is to not to speculate on the motivations of those involved. Their duty is to decide whether the evidence presented conclusively proves the prosecution case. In this trial, it did not. This is an objective decision based on the information available and is not conjecture.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It's time to move on. This is not
getting us anywhere.

Neither of us can be right all the time.

I think everybody handles things very differently
and we can conjecture, but until we're put in
that situation we really don't know.

Foxy,

Agreed, there is much to speculate in this case. There is only one certainty and that is that there was insufficient evidence to convict the ute driver of manslaughter.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You.

foxy I have tried to keep up with this topic or at least where it ended up. I have some questions or concerns. You accuse the driver of breaking the law in driving too close to the motorcycle. I may be wrong but as this all took place 'off-road', I believe the traffic act did not apply so it simply became 'death by misadventure'. As for 'running the motorcycle over'. I believe we all agree that a 'trail-bike', when off-road, weaves erratically so the obvious happened. From the details on this story, I extracted the scenario that the owner of the bike was high on adrenaline and was very keen to stop the bike in any way he could, without any desire to kill him. He intended to possibly 'elbow' him off the bike as they do in mustering cattle and such. Once the bike had stopped he intended to give him the biggest hiding of his life and then leave him there as he loaded his bike and returned home. As for the bike having been thrown away, I'm not sure where that came from but it does not seem to fit the over-all scenario of events. You also appear to sympathise with the boy for 'stealing' the bike. I must disagree in the strongest possible terms. I have had enough stolen from me and from all nationalities that I feel qualified to comment on at this time given where this topic has strayed to. My position is yes, whatever form of punishment is acceptable when it comes to theft. You say, who cares your insured. Well not everyone and not always and not everything, so having spent the time and effort to make the money to buy these items I do not care what happens to someone if they are thieves. Earn your money. Are the hand-outs not enough?