Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy
You wouldn't think a little 3oz. piece of lead could rip a massive hole in something soft, either, but it does. F=ma. Look it up.
Should I post those bike-hits-deer videos again? Remember the ones where the deer appears out of nowhere and the rider has no time to react at HALF the speed this clown was going?
At those speeds, he's endangering ANYONE else using the road in his vicinity. At 200km/h, he's covering 56m/s... over 180ft PER SECOND. Car pulls onto the road off the shoulder, or from a side road... that car is toast as well. F=ma. Even if he does see it, he doesn't have time to react, let alone stop in time, unless he sacrifices himself by swerving into the ditch.
Whether you 'get' the physics of it or not, the fact remains, he wasn't thinking of anything else except himself, something that's borne by the sheer number of his previous convictions.
Now you're starting to sound like CiC. Wanting to be able to use the roads safely without having to worry about some brainless asshole on a bike does not make one a "sheep".
You can "stray away from the comfort of the herd" on a track, where the herd is kept clear. On the streets, the herd would like to be able to go about their own lives without having to look over their shoulders.
|
Yes, you are arguing "won't someone think of the kittens" and phil is arguing "live free or die"
I don't think anyone thinks that this is a case of letting the guy go about his business free and clear because he decided that it was a safe road to let loose on.
What everyone IS saying is that he didn't hit 200kph in a shopping mall with school kids present. And we're all saying that for fuck sakes, we're not supposed to fear the government.
I don't like them having too much power.
It's why I dislike the road side drunk driving laws. People would turn that around and say, "so you support drunk driving?" and its a matter of no, but I support our system of laws.
Create a system where he can be charged with reckless endangerment and excess speeding. Great. Put financial penalties toward that. We can argue it, change it, waive it or whatever, but the same rules apply for everyone.
But to sit there and decide to go after his property...one of the base rights of our justice system, that of ownership, becomes punitive.
And that's where I redflag this shit.
These cases should be rare, and directly related to people profiting from crime.
If he bought the bike by selling kilos of coke to high school kids, then we'll talk about civil forfeiture, and hash that out in court, proving without a doubt that the money was illicit in nature.