Should the police have charged her? - Page 3

ltd · 15-08-2006, 07:42 PM

xrchic, no offence, I guess I probably looked too far into your post. I agree the assault charge was a bit much, especially when assault is often confused with battery and confused with intent. I believe there was no malice on this girls part however I think that she needs to have this incident recorded. Having 1 point left on her licence would indeed ensure that she takes the utmost care on the road and hypothetically, that may just save lives including her own. I must admit I believe steve is entitled to an explaination as to why she appears to have lied in her statement to police about seeing and not seeing his father; and if she has indeed lied to avoid paying a fine at such a serious time then I hope the police throw the book at her.

Thanks for quantifying what I already thought in relation to your qualifications. I can see why you weren't forthcoming with advice; I mistakingly thought steve was in NSW. I haven't kept up with the varying statutes in states other than NSW regarding traffic matters as I haven't practiced for over 6 years. As such, I agree entirely with you about not offering legal advice.

In hindsight, I think I'll just stick to planes rather than law, as I am suddenly reminded as to why I got out of it in the first place. Grappling with issues of morality does take a toll, especially when you suspect your client is making a vexatious claim. (not in this case).

I can tell you though of an elderly ethnic gentleman who was claiming for industrial hearing loss and through the obvious dollar signs in his eyes decided to embellish his story. Long story short, the judge dismissed the case when this gentleman proceeded to tell the court that at night, in bed, the ringing was so bad that even his wife could hear it. That was June 1997 and it was not until late 1999 that we made him understand that his BS lost the case for him.

banarcus · 15-08-2006, 09:07 PM

Basically in NSW it would be a charge given the injury sustained from the victim = grevious(broken leg) and the negligence of the act itself.

Steve · 15-08-2006, 09:16 PM

Sorry guys, I should've clarified I'm in Vic.

Steve · 15-08-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

Not an assault in any way shape or form unless it was intentional. Misadventure is a defence to assualt.. this was definitely misadventure.
The worst she would get is a ticket for reverse when unsafe. Hardly worth worrying about.
I hope your dad gets better soon.

Thank you. I know you would've seen this kind of thing before from a couple of sides and should know what you're talking about. Cheers.

GCFordChic · 15-08-2006, 10:27 PM

I hope your dad gets better and this episode doesnt affect you guys too much.

Having read through everything, i wont comment on legal issues or the original question of whether she should/should have been charged, for lack of unbiased, unemotive information. (Im not having a go at you buddy, i just understand that as the son of an injured party you are bound to be 'on your dad's side' and fairly emotional about the whole incident, which is reflected in the information you have given us)

I would just like to add, however, that i am surprised by the negative, critical interpretation (once again based on one side of the story, of a person not at the original incident) of a young woman showing her shock, remorse and sympathy by crying. Many members have been harsh and gone as far as saying they hate it when women 'turn on the waterworks' in order to get something. I find this terrible because i would hate to come across some members of the forums one day and truly be in need, but because i am crying i fear they would ignore me.

Im glad it wasnt one of those forum members who was the plumber i called the other day when i thought i had broken something when the hot water heater started to leak (probably not the best description, how about burst and water gushed out!). My thinking was, oh crap somehow i have broken something, i am gonna get in trouble from my partner, im gonna have to pay for a whole new one with the money i was going to use for uni texts, i cant stop the water coming out, there is a massive drought and kids in africa without any clean water and here i am letting it go straight down the drian, i havent done the laundry yet, and i need to wash my hair!!
By the time i got to the phone, i was in tears. not sobbing, but teary. It wasnt my fault, the valve was deteriorated, but i couldnt help it. Just imagine what i would have been like in the situation described in this thread....and some of you would think i was 'putting it on', that would make me feel worse and probably cry more. I dont know for sure if the young woman was or wasnt putting it on, but if you are willing to see the story from one side, consider it from the other.

And i am still feeling guilty about the hot water heater, i wouldnt forget about hitting someone with my car in a hurry...

Steve · 15-08-2006, 11:17 PM

Point taken GCFordChic, it's just that I have experienced false waterworks before and that may have tainted my view on this incident. As a guy you learn to keep things in and deal with the situation.

rushing on acid · 15-08-2006, 11:19 PM

sorry to hear about your dad but being a p plater in a rav 4 doesnt really fit the ""hoon"" catergory, that is probably why she didnt get charged, yet if she was in a dunnywhore or a crx or some other piece of garbage that feral women drive to make em look like a hoon then id say she would have been charged. but that is my opinion and i dont have a high regard for any law enforcment agency or employee.

exrtnz · 16-08-2006, 12:03 AM

Yeah mate, make sure you follow this through, otherwise this could happen to someone else. Yeah, had it been a guy in a fpv it wouldve been a different story!

GCFordChic · 16-08-2006, 08:21 AM

LOL hell, if only us lowly females could learn to keep it in and deal with the situation!

_2:

:

:

I think making assumptions about what would have happened had it been someone else is ridiculous.

Well, fortune tellers and crystal-ball gazers what would have happened if it was me in my Pursuit 250, with added extras....and I CRIED?!

The police have been notified of the incident, the young woman had enough BALLS to go to the cops and tell them her version of events, even though it meant she may get in serious trouble. I’m not condoning what she did, or even telling you all what I think should happen to her, I am merely sympathising with both parties as an unbiased outsider.

Let’s forget about what would have happened if the trees were purple, the sun didn’t rise, pigs flew, the car was a different sort of car and she was a guy instead....there is no point. :alien2:

ltd · 16-08-2006, 08:36 AM

Well, she did indicate that it may have been waterworks by the fact that she changed her story aboutseeing him and not seeing him to the police. Whilst I admit that she may have been stressed at the time and not thinking straight I personally have witnessed dozens of women put on a convincing performance to get their way and have more sympathy; especially in the courtroom.
How do I know they are putting it on? Because they had been counselled to do so.
So I don't think people here have been especially nasty, as they undoubtedly picked up on this girls inconsistency in her story to the police about seeing/not seeing steves father. I call it being astute.

On another note, guys typically melt at a woman in distress and the reason why we can't stand the waterworks is because it is usually when we cave in to the womans wants. I personally hate women who cry excessively to meet their own needs and I have been out with girls like the one in seinfeld who cried at the least provocation ( she dropped her hotdog and cried). In many instances, some women do in fact use the tears to get their own way so again, I believe the guys on this post who have questioned the waterworks are probably being quite astute.

xr8gal · 16-08-2006, 09:45 PM

I'm in Vic, and back in Nov of last year, i was in a car that got smacked up the rear whilst i was at a standstill giving way at a roundabout.
As a result, i hurt my back and later went to the hospital. I was informed that i had to report it to the cops as i had been injured.
TAC had to be notified, as it was a traffic accident causing injury, and they pay any medical costs incurred.
Four months later, the local copper came around and asked me for a statement as he was about to charge the woman that hit me with NEGLIGENT DRIVING causing injury.
The other driver had not been looking when she hit me. Apparently, she had been looking down on the floor for sumfin ( i cant remember what it was now) and she had told me at the time of the accident and also admitted to the coppers.

As it panned out, everything is fine but she wore a ticket cos someone had been injured due to her negligence.

Also, just for the record, a person reversing is ALWAYS at fault in the event of a collision!

Best wishes to the original poster's Dad, for a SPEEDY recovery!!

GCFordChic · 16-08-2006, 09:57 PM

astute- from what i recall that means clever and perceptive...hmmm people slagging off a girl for crying...astute?

Short of posting her statement made to police, or the girl writing a post here herself. I'll sit back and say, maybe she was maybe she wasnt, but give her the benefit of the doubt, we have one person's story, a person who wasn't even there, yet we all jump up and down believing what they say and completely put down the other person for crying, of all things. Some forum members have taken it as an oppertunity to make a broad statement about the intention and morals of 50% of the population.

Steve · 16-08-2006, 11:27 PM

GC, sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to. Whilst I still stand by what I said, I never said that all women are the same. If you read post 52 I said "some people", not some women. Some guys do the same thing, not with tears, but effectively the same thing.

Tony xa · 16-08-2006, 11:38 PM

Hell yeah they should charge her.
We all make mistakes thats a given but we do have to pay for them exspecialy when someone else gets hurt or even just effected from that mistake .
Hope all goes well with your Father

drcook · 17-08-2006, 01:36 PM

i am being careful not to make a chauvinistic remark about

"bad women drivers"

oh, bugger... :hihi:

Mack 6 · 17-08-2006, 02:35 PM

How your dad comes up good mate.

Incidents like this will push the whole rear vision issue with 4wd's etc. I can't speculate as to the events surrounding the accident, but there seems to be a trend of people reversing into things (A mother hit her kid in the news this morning)

Only problem is they want to fix it by making reversing camera's mandatory. More accidents then as you don't get depth perception and you'll be concentrating on the screen and not everything like you should be.
I have 2 camera's on my truck, but I still get out to see what's behind me occasionally.

As for the offence, it terrible that it happened, and I am guessing it was just a stupid accident. Hard to justify charges then I suppose. Does the compulsory third party for bodily injury come into play? Make her pay a huge excess!

GCFordChic · 17-08-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

GC, sorry if I offended you. I didn't mean to. Whilst I still stand by what I said, I never said that all women are the same. If you read post 52 I said "some people", not some women. Some guys do the same thing, not with tears, but effectively the same thing.

Oh, I wasnt offended, i was just surprised that some other people on here seem to think 'bloody women and their waterworks, she only got off because of that, if it was me or another guy he would have been charged and dragged away in handcuffs'...

For instance "Yeah, had it been a guy in a fpv it wouldve been a different story!", "Yeah Id say the sob story helped her cause", "If it were a bloke with long hair, a beard and tattoos it may have been different...Sad fact of life...", "I HATE people who use that teary eyed, "I'm so sorry so I'm in tears" crap to get away with stuff", "The damsel in distress act really *****s me!", "I’m sick to death of inept drivers getting off scott free because they break down in tears", "Like I said, at the very least she needs to be charged regardless of the waterworks.", "As said, if that was a male driving a GT or even a male p plater it would of hit the fan big time."

After your remark "She was putting on a big sob scene so I think that may have swayed the police." Until then comments were not tainted with gender generalisations or undertones.

In the end, all i was trying to point out to everyone was although we take your comments about the whole incident at face value, perhaps as third parties we should stay out of emotive attacks on the other person (who is presumably not here to defend herself) and sympathise with you and offer any constructive suggestions we can...

Argggg...people will now think im a Femi-nazi, when in reality i dont mind going to fetch males a beer and make them dinner...lol

86XFFairmont · 17-08-2006, 05:21 PM

id say Conduct Endagering life or reckless endangerment at least, i had a girl on a bike not long ago wen i was in the truck, she seen me coming i was bout 5 m or so away but just about to exit the roundabout doing a right hand turn and she peddeled the bike out just in front ove me and seen i was coming thru as the cab ove me tow truck went past her she came out further and the L/H rear wheel collected the front ove her tyre and knocked her off, so i slammed on the brakes thinking she went under as i couldnt see her in the side mirror or the (convex Mirror) i think its called below the side one (truckies will know which one) so ive jumped out and shes layed out on the road but un hurt and the front rim and tyre ove her bike were a little damaged, i was appologizing prefusly at the time then after i got thinking and it wasnt my fault at all just the silly woman poked the bike out too far and it knocked her off so its her own fault as i did everything right even waived her across but she didnt move and she seen me wave her across too so i dunno sum ppl are just idiots on the road in cars and bikes...

BA_Turbs · 17-08-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86XFFairmont

id say Conduct Endagering life or reckless endangerment at least, i had a girl on a bike not long ago wen i was in the truck, she seen me coming i was bout 5 m or so away but just about to exit the roundabout doing a right hand turn and she peddeled the bike out just in front ove me and seen i was coming thru as the cab ove me tow truck went past her she came out further and the L/H rear wheel collected the front ove her tyre and knocked her off, so i slammed on the brakes thinking she went under as i couldnt see her in the side mirror or the (convex Mirror) i think its called below the side one (truckies will know which one) so ive jumped out and shes layed out on the road but un hurt and the front rim and tyre ove her bike were a little damaged, i was appologizing prefusly at the time then after i got thinking and it wasnt my fault at all just the silly woman poked the bike out too far and it knocked her off so its her own fault as i did everything right even waived her across but she didnt move and she seen me wave her across too so i dunno sum ppl are just idiots on the road in cars and bikes...

How is backing out of a parking spot conduct endangering life? If she was reversing along the footpath at 100km/h, then perhaps.

Everyone is too excited. It MIGHT be a Careless Drive and it IS a reverse when unsafe.

Simple.

Keepleft · 18-08-2006, 01:01 PM

Those replacement clear bulbs bearing an intermittent buzzer function which serve as a verhicles reversing alarm are worthwhile, particularly if they are LED based for longevity, cost about $14 - $23.

I note much American legalese exhibited in group by some members:-)

YOU see in this story why Greenslip insurance premiums run so high.

Redrum · 18-08-2006, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86XFFairmont

id say Conduct Endagering life or reckless endangerment at least,.

Not a chance. This charge would never get up in court. If this were the case than everyone who reverses and hits anything would be charged with it. She has merely reversed and failed to check properly before she did. End of story.

ORSMEB · 18-08-2006, 02:53 PM

So if you wanted to kill someone, you would just reverse into them and drive over them?

BA_Turbs · 18-08-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR-6000

So if you wanted to kill someone, you would just reverse into them and drive over them?

No.

The concept isn't hard.

INTENTIONAL & RECKLESS are important here. Her intentional was to reverse out of a parking spot, not to kill Steve's old man. The conduct was not such that she was being reckless to the fact that someone could be hurt.

Even RECKLESS Conduct Endangering Life is not appropriate. Like I said before, an example would be driving along a footpath:

1 - If you're aiming at someone, hit them and kill them, its murder.

2 - If you are aiming at somone, but miss them or hit them and don't kill them, its Conduct Endangering Life/Serious Injury (Depends on speed & other things. There is also a serious assault charge here)

3 - If you are just driving along the footpath, not intending to harm anyone, but do so, then you would be looking at RECKLESS Conduct Endangering Life/Serious Injury.

Experts like Redrum or ltd will be able to pull these examples to bits, as they are very basic, but what I am trying to show is the girl that backed out of the parking spot is not a criminal!!!

If my explanation doesn't clear up your confusion, go out and give it a go, the judge will explain it to you better than I could.

ORSMEB · 18-08-2006, 03:19 PM

Nice and clear mate. Cheers

**Papa Smurf** · 19-08-2006, 12:25 AM

I am sorry to hear of your Father's accident. I hope he recovers to 100%.

If the roles had been reversed, I am sure your Father would have been charged? Male tears carry NO weight?

kempster1 · 19-08-2006, 09:02 AM

Steve hope your Dad is OK.

Just to put a different twist to this.
I work for an electricity supply company and that did have a fleet of RAV4 for meter reading. Several years ago they got rid of them all due to the amount or reversing incidents in them.
All the divers claimed they had the worse blind spots of any car they have ever driven.

Boss 260 Ute · 19-08-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kempster1

Steve hope your Dad is OK.

Just to put a different twist to this.
I work for an electricity supply company and that did have a fleet of RAV4 for meter reading. Several years ago they got rid of them all due to the amount or reversing incidents in them.
All the divers claimed they had the worse blind spots of any car they have ever driven.

Plus they look ugly!

red_hotxr6 · 19-08-2006, 10:42 AM

Go and seek advice, see a lawyer. A.S.A.P.

ltd · 19-08-2006, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BA_Turbs

No.

The concept isn't hard.

INTENTIONAL & RECKLESS are important here. Her intentional was to reverse out of a parking spot, not to kill Steve's old man. The conduct was not such that she was being reckless to the fact that someone could be hurt.

Even RECKLESS Conduct Endangering Life is not appropriate. Like I said before, an example would be driving along a footpath:

1 - If you're aiming at someone, hit them and kill them, its murder.

2 - If you are aiming at somone, but miss them or hit them and don't kill them, its Conduct Endangering Life/Serious Injury (Depends on speed & other things. There is also a serious assault charge here)

3 - If you are just driving along the footpath, not intending to harm anyone, but do so, then you would be looking at RECKLESS Conduct Endangering Life/Serious Injury.

Experts like Redrum or ltd will be able to pull these examples to bits, as they are very basic, but what I am trying to show is the girl that backed out of the parking spot is not a criminal!!!

If my explanation doesn't clear up your confusion, go out and give it a go, the judge will explain it to you better than I could.

Nah mate, you're pretty close to the mark; the only difference would be what the law is called which varies state by state ie, vehicular manslaughter with intent as opposed to murder in NSW. In criminal hearings you predominantly hear about charges of murder.

Your advice on how to clear up confusion was gold though.

Redrum · 19-08-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BA_Turbs

No.

The concept isn't hard.

INTENTIONAL & RECKLESS are important here. Her intentional was to reverse out of a parking spot, not to kill Steve's old man. The conduct was not such that she was being reckless to the fact that someone could be hurt.

Even RECKLESS Conduct Endangering Life is not appropriate. Like I said before, an example would be driving along a footpath:

1 - If you're aiming at someone, hit them and kill them, its murder.

2 - If you are aiming at somone, but miss them or hit them and don't kill them, its Conduct Endangering Life/Serious Injury (Depends on speed & other things. There is also a serious assault charge here)

3 - If you are just driving along the footpath, not intending to harm anyone, but do so, then you would be looking at RECKLESS Conduct Endangering Life/Serious Injury.

Experts like Redrum or ltd will be able to pull these examples to bits, as they are very basic, but what I am trying to show is the girl that backed out of the parking spot is not a criminal!!!

If my explanation doesn't clear up your confusion, go out and give it a go, the judge will explain it to you better than I could.

I don't pertain to be an expert. I learn something new everyday but I believe the above is well said.