BL> I can never understand why someone in a 1.5 ton car with 100HP
 BL> lets themselves be monstered by dickheads outside the locked
 BL> windows.

 JT> Because we've all been led to believe that running people over
 JT> is a criminal offence. Maybe in fairy-land, but we don't live
 JT> in fairy land, this is reality. Root or be rooted.

  You are right. Most of us are law-abiding, and running people over
is a criminal offence. We put the law above survival. And then when a
policeman asks us what happened, we law-abiding fools tell him the
truth in great detail and have this information used against us.
Criminals know better.

 BL> The only bit I'm not sure about is whether to report it to
 BL> Police.

 JT> Why report? Justice has been served. The whole reason to law is
 JT> to prevent people from doing the crimes in the first place, in
 JT> the boong case, the one who got run over won't be doing it
 JT> again, or at least a long time. And if he ever decides to do it
 JT> again, I bet he'll say, "This time *I* hold the brick". 

  Never confuse justice with the Law. The Law is the only thing that
matters. If you caught in the wheels they grind you up.

  NEVER justify yourself. Just do it and accept responsibility for
what you did, and take the course that offers you the best chance of
survival. If you have to break the law and lie about it afterwards,
then... so what? The key is responsibility. If you kill a boong and
have to justify it to yourself, you'll end up justifying it to the
police too, and do ten years in Long Bay.

 JT> Oh, here we are, a couple had their car carjacked in redfern,
 JT> and found it burnt out a short time later minus a few tools, a
 JT> handbag and a small amount of cash.

 JT> They must have thought that they were living in fairy land.

  You can also take the view that the couple in the Merc took the
correct course. Property was destroyed (their property), but no one
was actually hurt (including the hijackers). Many people would see
this as the optimum result, and in fact the law sees it that way too.

  Personally, I value my property but in a case of survival I would
sacrifice it willingly. What I would not do, is put myself in the
hands of a pack of boongs... and trust them not to hurt me. I'd much
rather hurt *them* and lie about the detail later to get around the
law.

 BL> just knock them down hard, drive away, and with a bit of luck
 BL> you'll only damage the one panel. Even then, you're looking at
 BL> $2,000 repairs.

 JT> Still cheaper than the alternative, a missing burnt-out car
 JT> with all the emotional torment that comes with it. Oh dear, I
 JT> feel so violated, fairy land is so unfair.

  To me, the real motivation is the physical threat to *me* not the
car. I'd accept some damage to the car, but once I decide to attack
using the car as a weapon, it is only sensible to try to minimise the
damage to the car (and maximise the damge to the attackee).

 BL> My attitude exactly. They want to play rough with me driving a
 BL> lethal weapon...?

 JT> Yeah but a brick is not "considered" a lethal weapon.

  I'm the one with a lethal weapon... a 1.4 ton car with 150HP.

 JT> Or a baseball bat, ditto cricket bat, a car steering wheel lock
 JT> even. Yet ALL of these have been used for the purpose of
 JT> terminating another persons' life. 

  Self Defence as a defence against murder does not rely on being
attacked with a lethal weapon; it relies on being in imminent fear of
your life... plus taking reasonable steps to avoid the attack first.

  If I were attacked in the street by unarmed kids (say), who yelled
they were going to kill me (as is their wont), and I ran up an alley
to get away and was trapped... then, under the law, I am entitled to
kill them. I took steps to avoid them (I ran away); I was in imminent
fear of my life (they stated the intent to kill), so I can pull out my
357 magnum and blow the fuckers away.

  This is an extreme example, but the multiple murder would be
defensible using self-defence. I'd be charged with possession of the
gun.

 JT> See what happens if you try driving a gun. Holy shit, the media
 JT> would have a field day. Oh, I'm sorry, shooting is not a sport,
 JT> so it must be a revenue earner for the media.

  That's the big advantage of using a car as a murder weapon. You
would almost certainly get away with it... even with independent
witnesses. It would mostly be a question of perception. You ran them
down... but you were only trying to get away. He jumped in front of
the car. You couldn't stop.  It's so easy to invent a sequence of
events that changes the perception...

 JT> Don't tell me, now we're going to have the "The steering wheel
 JT> lock party" come into politics. So if you don't get rooted by
 JT> labour, it's liberal, otherwise someone with a gun, some long
 JT> pink haired hippie yelling PEACE, or some grass smoking druggo.
 JT> If not with some nut with a steering wheel lock. I get politics
 JT> now, it's an occupation where you can root without getting
 JT> rooted, cool, I might try it.

  The thing to remember is that if you murder someone intentionally,
you will feel bad about it. The police play on this, and the chances
are that you will confess. If you are ever in *serious* trouble with
the law, and especially if you are guilty... say nothing. Tell your
story in court for the first time, after rehearsing it with your
lawyer in private.

Regards,
Bob


  
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---