Floods and idiots

[Lazarus]

Hey CZ,,,,,,, Are you really Ziad ? I seem to remember you from way back. I was under the impression that you had been ****ed ?

Shhh, he's incognito DJ

[Lazarus]

You clearly made the inexcusable suggestion that the passenger may be to blame for the driver's actions that were the direct cause of her loss.
There is no doubt about that or how grubby it is to do so then trying to worm your way out of it by claiming I misunderstood you.

The suggestion that she may hold some blame is as reasonable or unreasonable as your suggestion that she doesn't given the information known.

That was the point by the way (which I know you don't understand)

You have no idea what happened, but you jump straight to judgement about something you know nothing about, that's a very closeminded way to be.

I'll make one final and no doubt futile attempt to get through to you.

The driver of a vehicle has the legal responsibility for everyone in the vehicle and a duty of care for them, other road users and anyone potentially put at risk by their behaviour behind the wheel.

Further, re your uninformed comment that drivers are not responsible to first reponders:

"AAI Limited v Caffrey [2019] QCA 293

Do Drivers Owe a Duty of Care to Rescuers? The Queensland Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that drivers owe a duty of care not only to passengers and other drivers, but also to police officers or any other rescuers who attend an accident scene."

https://www.corneyandlind.com.au/compen ... -rescuers/

You've reached the bottom of the hole, it's not possible to get much lower, so best you stop digging.

Again, why are you posting civil law cases? you don't seem to understand civil law and criminal law are different!

I told you this last time you posted about civil law trying to pass it off as applying to criminal law and you are now trying to do it again .

Maybe google it so you at least know the difference as you are just making a fool of yourself. Happy to have a discussion about criminal negligence, but at least try and learn the basic concepts of law first.

Sorry, I was badly mistaken.

It seems you have no level to which you won't sink to try to win some imaginary contest that's only going on in your head.

You suggest I lack comprehension to try to deflect from your dishonourable comment about a dead person, then when that fails you try twisted semantics.

You continually harp that the examples given are civil, not criminal, conveniently ignoring the FACT that there IS liability.

Liability was my point, something you either cannot or will not accept.

th.jpeg (11.79 KiB) Viewed 1211 times

[Fionn]

Sorry, I was badly mistaken.

That's OK, I can clearly see you are struggling with a lot of concepts that you don't understand and that are probably beyond your capabilities

That must be very difficult for you.

As the saying goes "You will never make the crab walk straight. "

[Oldbloke]

Hey CZ,,,,,,, Are you really Ziad ? I seem to remember you from way back. I was under the impression that you had been ****ed ?

And Sargent Hartman

[cz515]

Actually tbh her body is not yet found, and yetthey also say she got out of the car.

So who knows

The news has reported her body has been found Ziad, probably best to get your facts right when talking about a young person's death.

Laz mate honestly as fion said, you have a comprehension problem. Please go back to school.

However, authorities were last night unable to find a 28-year-old woman, who was also a passenger in the vehicle.

While the body is yet to be formally identified, police said they believed it was the missing woman.

I just read the article and posted my reply earlier. For those playing along i have just highlighted a segment from the ABC article. Maybe my English is not university level, but ffs even someone with an IQ of 75 would understand what i said.

I suggest you re-read my post, although it may be a lack of comprehension skill on your part which is causing your confusion.

So to make it more simple for you, the only argument I put forward was that you were jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts.

[on_one_wheel]

Just like Fionn, I too identify as a legal expert having watched all 456 episodes of Law and Order.

Keep it up, I love how you keep going around in circles trying to back your trife with ever increasing nonsensical and irrelevant rubbish that you invent in a failed attempt to look intelligent... it's great

"In the Criminal Justice System, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”

[Oldbloke]

Just like Fionn, I too identify as a legal expert having watched all 456 episodes of Law and Order.

Keep it up, I love how you keep going around in circles trying to back your trife with ever increasing nonsensical and irrelevant rubbish that you invent in a failed attempt to look intelligent... it's great

[i]"In the Criminal Justice System, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”[/i]

That's funny.

However I'm afraid that I agree with fion. Weeelll mostly.
I know just enough about law to be dangerous.
Few people understand how our laws work and it can be tricky/complicated.

And googling law related stuff is just looking to get it wrong.

[Fionn]

Just like Fionn, I too identify as a legal expert having watched all 456 episodes of Law and Order.

Keep it up, I love how you keep going around in circles trying to back your trife with ever increasing nonsensical and irrelevant rubbish that you invent in a failed attempt to look intelligent... it's great

"In the Criminal Justice System, the people are represented by two separate, yet equally important groups: The police who investigate crime, and the District Attorneys who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.”

Well that explains where your understand of the law comes from then.

Where as for me, so I guess you could say "these are my stories"

[Oldbloke]

I think the post from on one wheel was all " tongue in cheek"

[Fionn]

Oh, OK I thought he was serious and was a huge fan.

[cz515]

Naa he's a bicycle

[on_one_wheel]

Naa he's a bicycle

Monocycle actually, I could only afford one wheel.

The more I learn about our legal system the more I realise it's all about the money. You can get out of anything if you throw enough money at it.
Look at the world's most high profile paedophiles like Michael Jackson, and the high ranking Catholic church rock spiders.
The absence of Epstein Island's list of names.
Hillilary Clinton's deleted emails
The 3 war criminals who went in looking for weapons of mass destruction.
The allegations against Donald Trump
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (dna sample provided)
... nothing to see here. and the list goes on forever with one common denominator, big money.

Its starts off like a means test based on your public profile, take like the professional v8 super car driver who ditched his McLaren at the Gold Coast for example, had that been OWW driving his kingswood I'd be booked for dangerous driving on the spot, probably facing a licence suspension and a serious fine... but not for Chris Pappas, the pro race car driver that nobody has ever heard of, that was just an unfortunate accident without a mention of speed or hoon driving anywhere
And that fool in Adelaide spared jail for killing the teenage girl by loosing it in his Lamborghini, I wonder how he'd go with a pissy little legal budget of 100k ? ... yep, he'd be in jail.

There's little justice in the justice system, it's not all black and white, it's a swamp filled with slimy creatures that rich people cross with bridges made of money and your average person drowns in while donating their life savings to the lifestyles of judges barristers and lawyers.

There is no justice system, just a money system.

[cz515]

Ahh finally you make sense and something i agree with.

[on_one_wheel]

Ahh finally you make sense and something i agree with.

Go back and read your own posts peaunut

[Die Judicii]

I think the post from on one wheel was all " tongue in cheek"

Oh No,,,,, you shouldn’t say “tongue in cheek” cos there are so many people on here that take every thing you say as literal and gospel. Poor souls. So in future omit “tongue in cheek”,,,, and type slowly so they can understand.

[Oldbloke]

Naa he's a bicycle

Monocycle actually, I could only afford one wheel.

The more I learn about our legal system the more I realise it's all about the money. You can get out of anything if you throw enough money at it.
Look at the world's most high profile paedophiles like Michael Jackson, and the high ranking Catholic church rock spiders.
The absence of Epstein Island's list of names.
Hillilary Clinton's deleted emails
The 3 war criminals who went in looking for weapons of mass destruction.
The allegations against Donald Trump
Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky (dna sample provided)
... nothing to see here. and the list goes on forever with one common denominator, big money.

Its starts off like a means test based on your public profile, take like the professional v8 super car driver who ditched his McLaren at the Gold Coast for example, had that been OWW driving his kingswood I'd be booked for dangerous driving on the spot, probably facing a licence suspension and a serious fine... but not for Chris Pappas, the pro race car driver that nobody has ever heard of, that was just an unfortunate accident without a mention of speed or hoon driving anywhere
And that fool in Adelaide spared jail for killing the teenage girl by loosing it in his Lamborghini, I wonder how he'd go with a pissy little legal budget of 100k ? ... yep, he'd be in jail.

There's little justice in the justice system, it's not all black and white, it's a swamp filled with slimy creatures that rich people cross with bridges made of money and your average person drowns in while donating their life savings to the lifestyles of judges barristers and lawyers.

There is no justice system, just a money system.

You are of course correct. Actually it's just that the system can be manipulated if you have plenty of money.

I recall reading some years ago about the death sentence and exicutions in the USA. Don't recall the actual numbers, but something like 90% of executions were poor black people.

[Die Judicii]

Praps CZ should re invent himself yet again,, only this time call himself/herself “Hydra” LOL

[cz515]

Why is that DJ. Did i upset you somehow. Maybe i stole your lunch when you were in primary school, seem to have done it to OB, the guy who could only afford one wheel and Mrs Lazarus.

I hear she is also complaining about Mr Hancock disrespecting her (when everyone knows it was the aboriginals)

[on_one_wheel]

Funny you should mention stealing lunches.
I did that yesterday, and of all the peoples lunches to steal, I mistook the bosses lunch for my own.
I ate 95% of his wrap before releasing that tasty dark meat (tuna) with cheese and onion wasn't the chicken, cheese, Mayo, egg and salad that I'd prepared tge night before.
Luckily he saw the funny side

[bradley33]

people are allowed to drink grog, get fat, smoke tobacco, drive cars that for some reason have been made to go faster than the speed limit since 1945, and all this kill millions and cost billions and thats just life. A few clowns want to drive around in a flood and cause a drama for first responders once every few years is small fry. Go fining acts of stupidity or waste and everyone will go broke.

Above is your first contribution to this thread in which you refer to "a few clowns causing a drama every few years" and making light of it.

It's not once every few years Bradley, it's every single time there's a flood, as you well know. People drowning may be "small fry" to you but to those who love them it's a big hole in their world.

You also in your last contribution avoided the questions.
Do you understand the concept of criminal negligence?
Do you think criminal negligence should go unpunished?
What if a first responder dies as a result of someone's criminal negligence.

I suggest to you that you avoid these questions because you know the answers and they disprove your flippancy.

How about an answer instead of circular obfuscation.
I also offer you some advice, you've only been here a week and already you're starting arguments, that's not inducive to longevity.

Lazarus, a post after I posted that we continued on the subject and ended up agreeing on various points. Go back and read it.

Then you change your mind and decide to rant for three pages over my first comment being too flippant again. You must be hell on the wife. have a fight, have makeup sex, then slap her around half way through.

As to starting arguments, your managing that pretty well yourself mate with half the people on the thread, even the ones you agree with some of the time.

Both you an Die Judici. The guy who in his own words, posts something saying its not the perfect solution, I reply to it, then he defends it, THEN he says it was tongue in cheek, now decides anyone pointing out he is jumping around on the issue, are at fault A man of many meanings, old Judici

As to only being here a short time, maybe fellas like yourself should take a breather before you chase everyone off.

[cz515]

Ok guy i am really sorry from now i am not going to say anything.

i had a very threatening and abusing private message from mrs Lazarus, looks like i upset someone.



Well maybe for tonight. Cuz how miserable is someone's life that they need to send those types of private messages online

[Fionn]

As to starting arguments, your managing that pretty well yourself mate with half the people on the thread, even the ones you agree with some of the time.

The issue is that Lazarus doesn't actually have an argument, its just a ranting unthought-out opinion.

[animalpest]

You also in your last contribution avoided the questions.
Do you understand the concept of criminal negligence?
Do you think criminal negligence should go unpunished?
What if a first responder dies as a result of someone's criminal negligence.

I suggest to you that you avoid these questions because you know the answers and they disprove your flippancy.

The problem is you don't understand what criminal negligence is either.

A person could never be charged with criminal negligence in the death of a first responder in these types of scenarios. If you understood what criminal negligence is you would know why.

On the contrary fionn, it's you who seems to have misunderstood the concept.

From the attorney general's dept;

5.5 Negligence
A person is negligent with respect to a physical element of an offence if his or her conduct involves:

(a) such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances; and
(b) such a high risk that the physical element exists or will exist;
that the conduct merits criminal punishment for the offence.

If there is a passenger in the vehicle you are driving, you have a duty of care for that passenger.
If you behave recklessly and that person dies, you ARE criminally negligent in that death.

https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publication ... negligence

Well, I would think that going through a road closed sign, having someone tell you not to go there as it is too deep, then driving on regardless would result in criminal charges.

As far as how to stop people doing it, more education may help, but people drive drunk or drugged regardless.

Methinks its time to quote Forrest Gump.

[Fionn]

Well, I would think that going through a road closed sign, having someone tell you not to go there as it is too deep, then driving on regardless would result in criminal charges.

While it sounds simple and straight forward, its not, A lot of things needs to be considered and investigated and before its classed as criminal negligence.

Things are often not as simple as they seem. Criminal negligence is a high threshold to meet, otherwise it would overly punishes the unintelligent and for simple bad luck.

As far as how to stop people doing it, more education may help, but people drive drunk or drugged regardless.

Methinks its time to quote Forrest Gump.

The number of people that die from this sort of thing each year is a very small faction of road deaths, but make great news stories. As a society there is more important issues that need the time and resources before this.

Its our skewed empathy which makes it seem more important than it is.

[Die Judicii]

Both you an Die Judici. The guy who in his own words, posts something saying its not the perfect solution, I reply to it, then he defends it, THEN he says it was tongue in cheek, now decides anyone pointing out he is jumping around on the issue, are at fault A man of many meanings, old Judici
.

Bradley,, I only boil my cabbage once. I already said to you,, Go for broke Precious,,. If you don’t comprehend that you’ve just demonstrated that your beyond help.

[Die Judicii]

Why is that DJ. Did i upset you somehow.

Far from it Bloke,,,,, I’ve got a pretty thick skin when it comes to attempts to upset me. I just have a degree of difficulty trying to fathom out a large percentage of what you actually post. As in quite often you don’t/can’t string a sentence together that makes sense. Then at other times magically you do so. ? Jeckle & Hyde issues happening there. I guess that would tie in with why you apparently have had a series of user names. ???

[bradley33]

Both you an Die Judici. The guy who in his own words, posts something saying its not the perfect solution, I reply to it, then he defends it, THEN he says it was tongue in cheek, now decides anyone pointing out he is jumping around on the issue, are at fault A man of many meanings, old Judici
.

Bradley,, I only boil my cabbage once. I already said to you,, Go for broke Precious,,. If you don’t comprehend that you’ve just demonstrated that your beyond help.

Im not sure why this thread got so bizarre. Will be sticking to gun related sub forums I think.

[Oldbloke]

Am I repeating myself?

Chill-Pills-.jpg (50.4 KiB) Viewed 1034 times

[Fionn]

Am I repeating myself?

Chill-Pills-.jpg

It did not go unnoticed that there aren't any blue pills in that Jar Oldbloke!

I see what you are doing

[animalpest]

Well, I would think that going through a road closed sign, having someone tell you not to go there as it is too deep, then driving on regardless would result in criminal charges.

While it sounds simple and straight forward, its not, A lot of things needs to be considered and investigated and before its classed as criminal negligence.

Things are often not as simple as they seem. Criminal negligence is a high threshold to meet, otherwise it would overly punishes the unintelligent and for simple bad luck.

As far as how to stop people doing it, more education may help, but people drive drunk or drugged regardless.

Methinks its time to quote Forrest Gump.

The number of people that die from this sort of thing each year is a very small faction of road deaths, but make great news stories. As a society there is more important issues that need the time and resources before this.

Its our skewed empathy which makes it seem more important than it is.

If that were the case, why are we even discussing the issue of idiots on flooded roads?