Walk to work????

Jim Goose · 08-10-2010, 03:19 PM

I honestly cant fathom the sheer arrogance of some people...

He deliberately runs down 3 people then asks the judge if he can ride his motor bike to work?!?!?

Quote:

Walk to work, judge tells alleged offender
Posted 1 hour 0 minutes ago

A teenager charged with running down three men in a car in Currie Street in the city has been refused permission to ride a motorbike to work.

The 19-year-old cannot be identified because he was a youth when he allegedly rammed the car at the men from behind, at up to 70 kilometres per hour in Adelaide.

He also allegedly dragged one of the men up to 200 metres.

Prosecutors have previously alleged the teenager wanted revenge because the men had picked a fight with the his friends in a Hindley Street nightclub.

The teenager, who has been disqualified from driving and is on strict bail conditions, asked the Adelaide District Court for permission to ride a motorbike to his workplace.

The judge refused the application, saying the workplace was close to his home and he could walk, cycle or catch public transport.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...08/3033161.htm

One hopes when he fronts court again he actually goes to jail...

Iggypoppin' · 08-10-2010, 04:19 PM

What an idiot. I hope I don't know him somehow, Adelaide s a small place.

Franco Cozzo · 08-10-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

He deliberately runs down 3 people then asks the judge if he can ride his motor bike to work?!?!?

"Runs down" and ramming a car with people in it are different things, I took "runs down" as in he hit and killed 3 pedestrians.

But yes he is a fool, but its pretty funny how he asks to ride a motorbike to work.

fmc351 · 08-10-2010, 06:10 PM

What amazes me, he is in a position to ask for anything but permission to go to the toilet.

3vXT · 09-10-2010, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

"Runs down" and ramming a car with people in it are different things, I took "runs down" as in he hit and killed 3 pedestrians.

But yes he is a fool, but its pretty funny how he asks to ride a motorbike to work.

Read it again. He didn't 'ram a car with three people in it'. He rammed three people with his car, dragging one of them 200 meters down the road.

If it was deliberate he should be working in jail with no need for a car or motorbike.

Mad Maxine · 09-10-2010, 01:28 PM

What he said ^
Double.

Cooper69S · 09-10-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

"Runs down" and ramming a car with people in it are different things, I took "runs down" as in he hit and killed 3 pedestrians

yeah the first sentence of the article is poorly worded - at first I also thought it said the 3 were in a car until the rest of the article explains...

Kryton · 09-10-2010, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Judge

The judge refused the application, saying the workplace was close to his home and he could walk, cycle or catch public transport.

Now this is what gets me.
Because his workplace is close to home, he could walk.
Which also means that if he lived far enough away from work, the Judge would have considered, if not granted, his application to ride a motorcycle to work.

People wonder why the legal system is a joke.

fmc351 · 09-10-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

Now this is what gets me.
Because his workplace is close to home, he could walk.
Which also means that if he lived far enough away from work, the Judge would have considered, if not granted, his application to ride a motorcycle to work.

People wonder why the legal system is a joke.

Not necessarily. Judges have to provide reasoning in the decisions, its just what he used in this case. It doenst mean he would have decided otherwise if he lived further from work.

Kryton · 09-10-2010, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

Not necessarily. Judges have to provide reasoning in the decisions, its just what he used in this case. It doenst mean he would have decided otherwise if he lived further from work.

Still a pretty poor reason.
The fact that the douche ran down 3 people should be sufficient.
Infact, he should get an extra 3 months for being so stupid as to ask in the first place.

fmc351 · 09-10-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davway

Still a pretty poor reason.
The fact that the douche ran down 3 people should be sufficient.
Infact, he should get an extra 3 months for being so stupid as to ask in the first place.

I dont disagree with you. But Im guessng the question before the judge was not the initial incident, but was an application to have a work licence or some such.