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.