• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Top bullies

Status
Not open for further replies.
I doubt this will be last time this situation ever comes to light again and we will no doubt see other innocent motorists taking the same sort of action Lien did.
 
Charles Morgan said:
Honestly, the sun is shining bright and it's 20C outside. Fancy staying in and debating this. I've been out, cut the lawn, planted 50 daffodil bulbs, weeded a bed, made chicken and pigs trotter stock, just eaten the trotters with a garnish of chilies, soy and ginger, and have just shaved a pig's head.

You're all weird.
Click to expand...

We're all weird??!!

Only a weirdo would shave a pig's head... :crazy:










...normal people use Immac :D
 
It would appear Sp!ke is now surrounded by car drivers who are indicating the error of his views. Wonder what his reaction will be. I await his displeasure in my in box.

-------------

Just back fm B&Q bit of hedge trimming and car cleaning. Wonder how long this thread will last.
 
Last edited:
Bobby Dazzler said:
...normal people use Immac :D
Click to expand...

If I'd used that I doubt I'd have made a bit of a pigs ear of the shaving...

pigsear_zps7ce84a32.jpg
 
trapperjohn said:
It would appear Sp!ke is now surrounded by car drivers who are indicating the error of his views. Wonder what his reaction will be. I await his displeasure in my in box.

----------
Click to expand...

I smell several bans brewing ... Or the whole thread will 'disappear' ;)
 
Last edited:
So after 50+ pages of discussion, I wonder if there is anyone who now thinks that their initial judgement/assumption/opinion was incorrect.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably
needs more time in the oven.
 
Here we go again... so I have a different opinion than others.Why should that lead to personal attacks on me?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? These personal attacks only demonstrate weakness in both argument and intellect.

The same sort of verbal assaults from the same posters have been directed at the bikers who right now are still innocent until proven otherwise.

This seemingly common attitude to think it is ok to attack bikers is what likely lead Lien to think it was ok to attack the bikers by charging into them with his car.

I find it staggering how few people here are able to view this with an open mind and explore any other possibility outside of what is being fed to them by the press.

Screw justice, why not just lynch all the scum bikers now!

Look at what is going on both here and in the media, take step back, open your eyes, what do you see?


The onus here is on Lien to prove that he and his wife and child was in immediate and grave or mortal danger.

I have not seen convincing proof of this, speculation, yes, beyond reasonable doubt no.

What happened here started as a minor fender bender. How many minor fender benders involving a motorcycle have *ever* escalated to such an extent that the motorist or his wife and child were in the position of mortal danger that Lien now relies upon to justify his actions?

Has it happened before ever?

These 'barbaric scum bikers' as they have been described. Whilst some of their prior records does indicate a history of frequent motoring offences the press have not to date produced anything to indicate a history of violence to support the theory of mortal danger.

No, if Lien had done the normal thing under the circumstances and got out of his car and asked if the rider was alright I have every faith that it would be a non news item as every other fender bender has been before.

The prosecution service have to charge Lien even if only to put closure on the matter and prove his innocence.

If the matter isn't dealt with fully and a proper exhaustive trial or inquest made then it will be like opening pandoras box.


How about ...

"He was a muslim and carrying a rucksack, I percieved immediate and grave danger ... so I ran him over with my SUV"

We can see the gaping holes in the above statement and where the onus of supportive evidence lies... the same applies to Lien. He needs to show that he *was* in immediate mortal danger, its not enough to say that he *thought* he was and so far I havn't seen anything other than rumour and conjecture to support his claim.

I think he panicked, over reacted and was lucky to not to be brought to a halt with a bullet to the head like the woman driver with her child in the back seat was on Capital Hill more recently.
 
Sp!ke said:
Here we go again... so I have a different opinion than others.Why should that lead to personal attacks on me?
Click to expand...

It should not be personal, at all.

I believe you are seeing 'facts', such as they are, and drawing different conclusions from the majority of other posters.

This is how debates work, that simply. It has been interesting watching the toing and froing, with a bit of pigs-head-shaving thrown in.

Trouble now is the circularity of the argument and some thoughtless and silly posts.
 
Last edited:
Sp!ke said:
The onus here is on Lien to prove that he and his wife and child was in immediate and grave or mortal danger.
Click to expand...

What happened to innocent until proven guilty, as YOU just said for the (as you call them) scum bikers?

Lien doesn't have to prove anything, he's not under any suspicion of any wrongdoing.
 
Sometimes, keeping fighting when you've lost the battle, just isn't sensible.

monty_python_2__limbless_black_knight.JPG
 
Sp!ke you ask everyone to entertain a different perspective and yet have steadfastly refused to entertain anything other than what you perceive...is that reasonable?


I have asked you time and again...if there was incontrovertable proof that indeed Lien and family was in mortal danger...would he have been justified...you have not replied.
 
For one minute Spike, forget about a minority getting riled at you and think this through; you ask for leniency in people's thinking with regards what these 'bikers' were up to and then go on to cast your own venom on the RR driver.

Do you genuinely not see the hypocrisy in doing so?

If you were the intelligent bloke you like to make yourself out to be, you would see that you'd get more support if you gave both parties the benefit of the doubt, but you don't and now you've made a pathetic attempt at a metaphor "Muslim with a rucksack"?! to try and convince!

Do you work for the Daily Wail? They have a remarkable talent for dredging up stories that are complete hypocrisy too.
 
Me thinks "Muslim with a rucksack" is just to get the whole thread nuked. Must be worth an infraction at the very least.
 
Dieselman said:
What happened to innocent until proven guilty, as YOU just said for the (as you call them) scum bikers?

Lien doesn't have to prove anything, he's not under any suspicion of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the law here dieselman.

You agree that is not legal to drive over people?

We now know that if certain extreme conditions are met you can be excused for breaking the law assuming the mitigating circumstances meet the required conditions.

There is no dispute that Lien ran over/into multiple people. There is also no dispute that this act is illegal.

Lien therefore broke the law and this he does not deny. He does however claim to have grounds in mitigation that may or may not excuse his breach. This he must prove.

He *must* therefore be charged so that the court can decide whether or not his mitigating circumstances are indeed justification for his act. This is too serious a matter for it not be decided in a court of law.
 
Still haven't answered my question in 774, regardless of the legality would he have been justified if in mortal danger?
 
Sp!ke said:
You misunderstand the law here dieselman.

You agree that is not legal to drive over people?

We now know that if certain extreme conditions are met you can be excused for breaking the law assuming the mitigating circumstances meet the required conditions.

There is no dispute that Lien ran over/into multiple people. There is also no dispute that this act is illegal.

Lien therefore broke the law and this he does not deny. He does however claim to have grounds in mitigation that may or may not excuse his breach. This he must prove.

He *must* therefore be charged so that the court can decide whether or not his mitigating circumstances are indeed justification for his act. This is too serious a matter for it not be decided in a court of law.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand the law.
If genuinely fearing for ones safety, one has the right to attempt escape at whatever cost to any assailant. You even cited your own case where that applied.

I'm very confident Lien will not be charged with any offence.

We've already covered this once many pages ago. I have direct experience of a similar situation and how the law will operate, even if the pedestrian is not at any fault and has already been threatened with violence.

In this case, Lien and his family were in real danger and were already being attacked after being unlawfully imprisoned.
 
renault12ts said:
I have asked you time and again...if there was incontrovertable proof that indeed Lien and family was in mortal danger...would he have been justified...you have not replied.
Click to expand...

I think I have actually. The answer is that he would be justified in breaking the law but only if the potential risk of doing so was less than this risk he was facing.

Given that he risked killing multiple people by fleeing the way he did and there were other less dangerous options open to him at the time, combined that with the possibility that there is ke information not yet in the public domain relating to was drew the two vehicles together in the first place, then I think that this is far from being a slam dunk as others seem to think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom