Truckie escapes jail sentence

[Tatiana]

And why is there the difference??

Hmmm, lets see.......

for speeding (180 in a 100 zone and with low range BAC,

There it is, your cousin was drunk and speeding, the truck driver wasn't. Next time you wish to enter a forum debate try comparing apples with apples.

 

[sjmcc]

Actually the kid wasn't punished as an idiot, he didn't get the maximum sentence.

problem is people don't equate "lapse in concentration" with "death". This irks me no end because if you have a lapse in concentration with a gun, you could have a death - 1 bullett. You have a lapse in concentration with a truck and you could have up to 50 deaths - Truck + bus....
Guns arent even designed to kill people. They are an evolution of the bow which was designed as a hunting weapon. Cars arent designed to kill people either, but a car is a more effective killing weapon than a gun, and should be licensed and legislated at least as tightly as a gun, if not more....

A car is not a gun you cry ! i can hear you from here. At distances of up to 100m, my hunting bow is more accurate and deadly than any pistol (not rifle). Yet it has no legislation whatsoever... But crossbows do and are classed as firearms, even though no 'fire' is involved. Slingshots are classed as firearms. Crossbows and slinghots were legislated as firearms because they wer as effective as firearms at shortrange. Bows were skipped 'Because they are not concealable' and 'Require substantial preparation prior to firing".

There is no logic in the law. It's an ass. Just because a car is not concealable, and requires substantial preparation prior to firing, does not make it less deadly, than either my bow, or a firearm.

I held a national ranking of #7 in the freestyle unlimited division with IFAA and IBO. Could - and maybe still can - put an arrow in every pip on a playing card at 30meters. Bows are EXTREMELY DEADLY at up to 100m, and can easily cause a fatalty at longer distances. FFS we kill bears and Moose with 'em, let alone feral pigs.

Yet almost anyone is allowed behind the wheel of a more fatal device, and is allowed lapses in concentration that cause fatalaties without being held morally accountable. I am so digusted with the law I am beyond words.

In relation to guns/firearms and the laws concerning them compared to motor vehicles, the substantial difference is that weapons are designed to kill. Now, I know you just said the gun is an evolution of the bow, but you say that it was a "hunting weapon", that is, it was made to kill. Thus, the gun is the evolution of an invention made to kill.

However, more logically, with the exception of farmers and professional shooters etc, ordinary people in Australia have no need for a gun. Therefore it is a lot easier to make licensing so strict as such a minority is involved. You could not expand this to cars as no system could cope with the logistics.

As for your lapses in concetration figures, the only reason they kill more people than guns in Australia would be due to our firearm licensing requirements I would have thought.

However, your point about lapses in concentration potentially causing death is a sound one. It is reports like this that should make us concentrate more on the road and take all measures possible to ensure this.

 

[Tsunamix]

One of the points i'm trying to make is that the firearms deaths were less than vehicular deaths - BEFORE the tight licensing was codified in 2002. In fact, Deaths per head of population due to firearms has always been less than that of vehicles - even when the only licensing restrictions for firearms was non existant.

On your point of being made to kill - i actually said made to kill people... minor point but firearms / bows where always made to kill animals / food first. Much like the fishing hook was a precursor to the whaling harpoon (which carries an effing grenade in the head). Both are equally fatal when used in contravention to their purpose.

Vehicles purpose is to travel, and in the carrying out of that purpose, people die. Firearms are made to kill animals, and only kill people when used in contradiction to their intended purpose. Yet it's far far easier to get a drivers license than get a gun license. For the average person, you must be a member of a gun club, have secure storage for firearms and ammunition - speratley, attended firarms safety training courses at registered outlets, and be required to repeat the training and revalidate the conditions annually. You must also not have a history of violence and mental instability or drugs offences, and have no previous firearms record.

Sure the logistics of making everyone jump through these hoops would be enormous - but not EVERYONE needs a drivers license either. Alot of people could use public transport for many things. The point being - why is less effort and training spent on a far more fatal device - the motor vehicle ? In comparison - i bet more people die to electrocution in australia than firearms - and you need no license at all to operate a microwave...

On a sort of a side note - you can't blame the advent of tight licensing laws with firearms in the reduction in deaths either. Over the years, firearms fatalaties have dropped by 47% yes, but the bulk of the reduction has came from a reduction in firearm suicides - and murder/suicides are classed as suicides because they are the result of a planned suicide. Firearms laws have reduced accidental deaths from 29 to 18 in 10 years, and murders from 89 to 47. Gee that was worth the hassle wasn't it.

 

[GenReaper]

IMO the guy should have done time regardless.

Kill 2 people and get off scott free sucks IMO even under the circumstances.
Yeah i feel for the guy but thats beside the point.
Who needs a gun when you can use a car?

Yeah i know thats not the case in this situation but 2 people died due to lack of concentration.

So what, the guy drives past the lot has to turn around and come back and be late, thems the breaks but at least those two people would still be alive and their family and friends not in distress.

There is realy no excuse, its like a motor mechanic forgeting to install some ones brake pads and sending them on their way while they kill 10 people in an accident, do you think he would get off with comunity service?

The law sucks, the Gov sucks, end of story.

 

[sjmcc]

I accept your points relating to your stats, however, I do think that although rifles and perhaps pistols might have spawned from hunting animals, there is only one purpose for a semi-automatic weapon or the like.

IF (and I speak from a Victorian perspective) public transport was acceptable then perhaps you could make licensing harder as people could use public transport. For many, it really isn't a viable option, which is a problem.

Again, this comes back to minority. Gun licensing is tight (perhaps too tight from what you are saying) beacuse you are in a minority of people so it will only piss off a few, while make the rest feel vindicated. There have been many discussions on this forum about making licensing for cars tougher/retesting etc, but the problem is it would piss off too many bad drivers, who would (and should) not get/renew their license. The obvious solution would be for a political competitor to offer an alternative, and they'd be set.

Being in a minority can suck and makes some decisions seem ridiculous. Believe me, I have represented Australia multiple times in the sport of Olympic Weightlifting and like you I understand how being in the wrong group can mean you cop it. Unfortunately, I don't see it ever changing.

As for another minority (although less of a minority) smokers in Victoria have seen a steady decline in their freedoms over the years. I don't particualrly care, I don't smoke, but I have some friends who do and they can mount reasoned arguments against some of the laws here in Vic. But that's another matter I guess.

On a final note I would also argue that the reductions found in non suicide related gun matters (total of 53 over the ten year period) is well worth the hassle.

 

[Macca86]

Hmmm, lets see.......



There it is, your cousin was drunk and speeding, the truck driver wasn't. Next time you wish to enter a forum debate try comparing apples with apples.

I was comparing the end result to the end result. My cousin, while yes being a complete retard behind the wheel DID NOT kill anyone. He deserved what he got and possibly more. It was only by the skin of his teeth he did not do time behind bars. Yet someone who killed 2 kids, got practically the same sentence as him. The point I was making was IMO the other circumstances shouldnt matter (i.e. that my cousin was drunk and speeding and the truck driver wasnt) it doesnt change the fact the truckie took two lives and has most probably shattered those 2 kids parents lives forever. He should have gotten a harsher punishment.

 

[danja]

To all the people advocating jail sentencing, can you explain what that achieves? Is it likely to change this mans behaviour in the future? I don't think so. Is there a deterrence effect to stop other people from doing the same thing? I don't think so.

You put the guy in jail, it just ends up costing the taxpayer money, and helps wreck another person's life. Where is the benefit to all this? How does it make the situation better. There simply isn't a way to make reparations for killing someone, the next best thing I can imagine is for him (the truck driver) to put some of his life back into the community via community service.

People need to realise there is no way to "win" in this situation, you can only make things less ****. The "eye for an eye" thing is just childish.

 

[Macca86]

I never said sending him to gaol (for gods sake people 'jail' is in America!) would change whats been done or anything. Would it change the mans behaviour?? Well its kinda hard to drive a truck into someones car when your in a cell isnt it!! Its not meant to fix whats been done. Its a punishment. He commited a terriable act, so as punishment he should be removed from society and have his own life turned upside down (much like his actions have now turned countless other peoples lives upside down). Mightnt be an ideal situation, but its better then 'getting off lightly'. Community service is bullshit most of the time anyway. It rarely 'contributes' to society. During my cousins service, all he done was stand around doin practically nothing for the required time.

 

[danja]

I never said sending him to gaol (for gods sake people 'jail' is in America!) would change whats been done or anything.

Actually, both are valid spellings in UK English.

Would it change the mans behaviour?? Well its kinda hard to drive a truck into someones car when your in a cell isnt it!!

And this is where the judge comes into it, if he judged that it was likely that he were to reoffend, I'm sure jail time would have been a likely outcome. As it stands in this case, sounds highly unlikely he would.

Its not meant to fix whats been done. Its a punishment. He commited a terriable act, so as punishment he should be removed from society and have his own life turned upside down (much like his actions have now turned countless other peoples lives upside down). Mightnt be an ideal situation, but its better then 'getting off lightly'.

Better for WHO exactly??? This is my question, who benefits? As far as I can tell, the answer is "Nobody!".

Community service is bullshit most of the time anyway. It rarely 'contributes' to society. During my cousins service, all he done was stand around doin practically nothing for the required time.

That sounds more like a failing of the community service program than the judgement.

 

[Tatiana]

(for gods sake people 'jail' is in America!)

Errrr, it's also a valid way to spell it here.