"Ray Murphy"
"Phil Allison"
>
>>> It's weird to see in S51A how BOTH (a) and (b) must exist for
>>> the offence of "predatory driving" can be committed.
>>
>> ** Not weird at all - it is bleeding obvious that intent to harm
>> a person must exist.
>
> RM: It ~is~ weird, because some motorists may wish to
> damage an expensive car with predatory driving - without any
> intention of harming any occupant, but they would not be guilty
> of preditory driving.
** There is nothing * weird * at all - .wit.
One can damage a car when it is parked and empty.
That crime is called malicious damage.
>>> It's not an
>>> offence (in that section of the Act) to deliberately damage another
>>> vehicle without harming an occupant, but it IS an offence to cause
>>> bodily harm.
>>
>>
>> ** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or
>> bodily harm.
>
>
> Now read S.51A again s-l-o-w-l-y this time, Phil
>
> (1) Take particular note of the words "that causes [..] an impact'"
> (Impact causes "damage" Phil.)
** An " impact " may cause no damage and you snipped the crucial word "
threatens ".
Here is the whole line:
" (a) engages in a course of conduct that causes or threatens an impact
involving the other vehicle, and "
So, I repeat:
** Section 51A has nothing to say about causing actual damage or bodily
harm.**
Dickhead.
> (2) Also -- "intends [..] to cause [....] actual bodily harm"
** Which is not actual harm but a thought existing in the culprits head.
Seek a remedial reading course now.
Cos your reading is completely .ed.
....... Phil
|