Teen in hospital after being run over by van driver in early morning row

Basildon Recorder: Teen in hospital after being run over by van driver in early morning row Teen in hospital after being run over by van driver in early morning row

A TEENAGER suffered serious injuries after being mown down by an angry van driver.

The 19-year-old was arguing with his girlfriend on Gatehope Drive, South Ockendon at about 2am this morning.

In a temper, the lad punched a nearby van. The van’s owner soon emerged and confronted the teen.

Police believe the man then got in to his van and ran the 19-year-old boy over, before speeding off.

Ambulance crews arrived and took the teenager, from South Ockendon, to Basildon Hospital where he remains in a serious condition.

It is believed a number of people in the street witnessed the incident.

Police are appealing for information.

Det Sgt Jim Adams of Grays CID said: "Enquiries are continuing to try and locate the vehicle and the driver.

"It is believed to be a white transit type van with a company name written in dark writing on the side.

“It may be parked in the area fairly regularly so we are carrying out extensive house to house enquiries in the local area.

“However, I would urge anyone who may have any information to contact officers as soon as possible.”

Anyone with any information or who may have witnessed the incident is asked to contact detectives at Grays CID on Essex Police 101 or contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Comments (97)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:04pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Robin Reliant says...

are the police sure several people in the street witnessed it,as i find it strange that no one has the number of the van or the company name emblazoned over it or what house the annoyed van owner came out of to front out the angry teen who hit his vehicle, didn't deserve to get run over but surely if he didn't hit the mans van then this story wouldn't be here right now, probably had a few too many Carlsberg's whilst watching England loose their opening game, as for the van driver the net is closing in i would say.
are the police sure several people in the street witnessed it,as i find it strange that no one has the number of the van or the company name emblazoned over it or what house the annoyed van owner came out of to front out the angry teen who hit his vehicle, didn't deserve to get run over but surely if he didn't hit the mans van then this story wouldn't be here right now, probably had a few too many Carlsberg's whilst watching England loose their opening game, as for the van driver the net is closing in i would say. Robin Reliant
  • Score: 34

3:12pm Sun 15 Jun 14

d_2da_ougle says...

**** i bet the van driver was in the bloody pub and all the people are covering up for him
**** i bet the van driver was in the bloody pub and all the people are covering up for him d_2da_ougle
  • Score: -14

3:47pm Sun 15 Jun 14

DAGASMAN says...

d_2da_ougle wrote:
**** i bet the van driver was in the bloody pub and all the people are covering up for him
At 2am?
[quote][p][bold]d_2da_ougle[/bold] wrote: **** i bet the van driver was in the bloody pub and all the people are covering up for him[/p][/quote]At 2am? DAGASMAN
  • Score: 4

4:14pm Sun 15 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

No doubt the van driver over reacted, but I can't help thinking that if the boy
I) hadn't attacked someone else's property and
II) had the decency to apologise and pay for the damage
he might not be in hospital.
No doubt the van driver over reacted, but I can't help thinking that if the boy I) hadn't attacked someone else's property and II) had the decency to apologise and pay for the damage he might not be in hospital. BIRLIS
  • Score: 54

5:56pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Nowthatsworthknowing says...

Just a Bum'p
Just a Bum'p Nowthatsworthknowing
  • Score: 3

6:18pm Sun 15 Jun 14

d_2da_ougle says...

yes at 2 am the archer is open i live next to the thing its a dive pub mate
yes at 2 am the archer is open i live next to the thing its a dive pub mate d_2da_ougle
  • Score: 19

6:35pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

pembury53 wrote:
I hope he's made to pay, for any damage to that van.....
l hope you are joking? Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter.
Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: I hope he's made to pay, for any damage to that van.....[/p][/quote]l hope you are joking? Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter. Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local. Almeda11
  • Score: 19

11:08pm Sun 15 Jun 14

mrmccallum22 says...

I would like to say to the ppl saying that , i hope the kid pays for the damages, this is insane , this kid is in hostbital , not only that he was angery with his gf for some reason , fair enough he should not of done that to his van, the guy should of reported it to the police , with the reaction the van driver done to run over the kid what a stupid thing to do. The kid dont deserve that . regardles of the damage i hope that the kid is ok. And i hope the coward of that so called man get sent down.
I would like to say to the ppl saying that , i hope the kid pays for the damages, this is insane , this kid is in hostbital , not only that he was angery with his gf for some reason , fair enough he should not of done that to his van, the guy should of reported it to the police , with the reaction the van driver done to run over the kid what a stupid thing to do. The kid dont deserve that . regardles of the damage i hope that the kid is ok. And i hope the coward of that so called man get sent down. mrmccallum22
  • Score: 8

11:13pm Sun 15 Jun 14

gubbins123 says...

I dont care if he punched a van or not he didn't deserve to be mowed down and left in a coma !!! 19 years old ffs
I dont care if he punched a van or not he didn't deserve to be mowed down and left in a coma !!! 19 years old ffs gubbins123
  • Score: 20

12:01am Mon 16 Jun 14

d_2da_ougle says...

mrmccallum22 wrote:
I would like to say to the ppl saying that , i hope the kid pays for the damages, this is insane , this kid is in hostbital , not only that he was angery with his gf for some reason , fair enough he should not of done that to his van, the guy should of reported it to the police , with the reaction the van driver done to run over the kid what a stupid thing to do. The kid dont deserve that . regardles of the damage i hope that the kid is ok. And i hope the coward of that so called man get sent down.
end of the story its hapened the boy should be proscuted for criminal damage and the bloke done with attempted murder no matter what you do or the others persons actions they still have to be held to account for their crime
[quote][p][bold]mrmccallum22[/bold] wrote: I would like to say to the ppl saying that , i hope the kid pays for the damages, this is insane , this kid is in hostbital , not only that he was angery with his gf for some reason , fair enough he should not of done that to his van, the guy should of reported it to the police , with the reaction the van driver done to run over the kid what a stupid thing to do. The kid dont deserve that . regardles of the damage i hope that the kid is ok. And i hope the coward of that so called man get sent down.[/p][/quote]end of the story its hapened the boy should be proscuted for criminal damage and the bloke done with attempted murder no matter what you do or the others persons actions they still have to be held to account for their crime d_2da_ougle
  • Score: 12

12:14am Mon 16 Jun 14

mrmccallum22 says...

d_2da_ougle wrote:
mrmccallum22 wrote:
I would like to say to the ppl saying that , i hope the kid pays for the damages, this is insane , this kid is in hostbital , not only that he was angery with his gf for some reason , fair enough he should not of done that to his van, the guy should of reported it to the police , with the reaction the van driver done to run over the kid what a stupid thing to do. The kid dont deserve that . regardles of the damage i hope that the kid is ok. And i hope the coward of that so called man get sent down.
end of the story its hapened the boy should be proscuted for criminal damage and the bloke done with attempted murder no matter what you do or the others persons actions they still have to be held to account for their crime
Thats what i am getting at. The boy was silly to do what he done, and the man was worse. If the man reported this like he should ov, then worse case senerio the kid would of probley paid a fine and done community service. Now this has happened i dont think that their will be a good result for either parties.
[quote][p][bold]d_2da_ougle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmccallum22[/bold] wrote: I would like to say to the ppl saying that , i hope the kid pays for the damages, this is insane , this kid is in hostbital , not only that he was angery with his gf for some reason , fair enough he should not of done that to his van, the guy should of reported it to the police , with the reaction the van driver done to run over the kid what a stupid thing to do. The kid dont deserve that . regardles of the damage i hope that the kid is ok. And i hope the coward of that so called man get sent down.[/p][/quote]end of the story its hapened the boy should be proscuted for criminal damage and the bloke done with attempted murder no matter what you do or the others persons actions they still have to be held to account for their crime[/p][/quote]Thats what i am getting at. The boy was silly to do what he done, and the man was worse. If the man reported this like he should ov, then worse case senerio the kid would of probley paid a fine and done community service. Now this has happened i dont think that their will be a good result for either parties. mrmccallum22
  • Score: 0

7:28am Mon 16 Jun 14

MumInOckendon says...

I think it would be fair to say we've all got angry during an argument with a partner at some point, and how many people reading this article have punched or slapped their partner instead of an object close to hand? It's holy unfortunate this YOUNG MAN took he's anger out on someone else's property instead of his own, and he is now (hopefully not) paying for it with his life!

Are we forgetting how cold and calculating the van driver was by running over that poor lad and leaving him to suffer! If it were your child would you be happy to read how judgemental some of these comments are?
Have some compassion for this young man and his family and stop polishing your laurels. Were not all saintly lords now are we..

What's the chances of the van driver even owning the van, it probably beings to the company he works for and he has had no regard for it whilst driving it.

Was the van driver 2 sheets to the wind having come out of the archer after watching the England game?

Young man I hope you have a full & speedy recovery X

To the perpetrator may you get your just desserts or grow a set and hand yourself in....
I think it would be fair to say we've all got angry during an argument with a partner at some point, and how many people reading this article have punched or slapped their partner instead of an object close to hand? It's holy unfortunate this YOUNG MAN took he's anger out on someone else's property instead of his own, and he is now (hopefully not) paying for it with his life! Are we forgetting how cold and calculating the van driver was by running over that poor lad and leaving him to suffer! If it were your child would you be happy to read how judgemental some of these comments are? Have some compassion for this young man and his family and stop polishing your laurels. Were not all saintly lords now are we.. What's the chances of the van driver even owning the van, it probably beings to the company he works for and he has had no regard for it whilst driving it. Was the van driver 2 sheets to the wind having come out of the archer after watching the England game? Young man I hope you have a full & speedy recovery X To the perpetrator may you get your just desserts or grow a set and hand yourself in.... MumInOckendon
  • Score: 21

7:57am Mon 16 Jun 14

Jorgaa says...

Are you all forgetting he's 19years old and has he's life ahead of him? As someone who went to school with him and knew him personally I find it extremely insulting at the bad taste comments! Have you no respect for he's family? There son is laying in a hospital bed because of a nutter! Granted he shouldn't of punched the van he was angry in anger we do stupid things. But your all as insane and the man in the van if you think it's acceptable to run somebody over! Thoughts and prays with the family! & hoping he has a speedy recovery! And here's to hoping the insane nutter is caught! Or better he gets run over himself. To those whom have made bad comments one day god forbid anything happen to your children. And I hope people are more respectful understanding and sympathetic then you low life's have been. Lots of humans no humanity. Shameful.
Are you all forgetting he's 19years old and has he's life ahead of him? As someone who went to school with him and knew him personally I find it extremely insulting at the bad taste comments! Have you no respect for he's family? There son is laying in a hospital bed because of a nutter! Granted he shouldn't of punched the van he was angry in anger we do stupid things. But your all as insane and the man in the van if you think it's acceptable to run somebody over! Thoughts and prays with the family! & hoping he has a speedy recovery! And here's to hoping the insane nutter is caught! Or better he gets run over himself. To those whom have made bad comments one day god forbid anything happen to your children. And I hope people are more respectful understanding and sympathetic then you low life's have been. Lots of humans no humanity. Shameful. Jorgaa
  • Score: 18

8:14am Mon 16 Jun 14

mikgrays says...

pembury53 wrote:
I hope he's made to pay, for any damage to that van.....
****!
[quote][p][bold]pembury53[/bold] wrote: I hope he's made to pay, for any damage to that van.....[/p][/quote]****! mikgrays
  • Score: -7

8:39am Mon 16 Jun 14

d_2da_ougle says...

not made a bad comment just stating if you touch someones property then expect a come back except being hit with a van is obviously miles over the top
not made a bad comment just stating if you touch someones property then expect a come back except being hit with a van is obviously miles over the top d_2da_ougle
  • Score: 13

9:10am Mon 16 Jun 14

VAB2708 says...

I also happen to know the lad and certainly doesn't deserve this. The driver should be charged with attempted murder & will get his just deserts. It this a normal sane person does coldly run someover because of a van, come on. My thoughts are with his family and hope you recover soon kid. We are all rooting for you.
I also happen to know the lad and certainly doesn't deserve this. The driver should be charged with attempted murder & will get his just deserts. It this a normal sane person does coldly run someover because of a van, come on. My thoughts are with his family and hope you recover soon kid. We are all rooting for you. VAB2708
  • Score: 1

9:41am Mon 16 Jun 14

Sarah94 says...

These comments are discusting !! How can you all be worrying about damage to the van !! He's lying in that hospital bed fighting for his life what for because of damage to a van ?!? That's not right at all!!!!!!! He is a respectful young man and had a bright future , imagine if it happened to your kids have some respect you vial people !! Thoughts with his family and hope this scum is found !!!!!
These comments are discusting !! How can you all be worrying about damage to the van !! He's lying in that hospital bed fighting for his life what for because of damage to a van ?!? That's not right at all!!!!!!! He is a respectful young man and had a bright future , imagine if it happened to your kids have some respect you vial people !! Thoughts with his family and hope this scum is found !!!!! Sarah94
  • Score: 9

11:08am Mon 16 Jun 14

Kelz83 says...

Hope this lad makes a full recovery!! X Its a van, you have called the police not run him over!!! That's someone's life, a van is a object!! Hope ya caught soon before you someone else is hurt!!
Hope this lad makes a full recovery!! X Its a van, you have called the police not run him over!!! That's someone's life, a van is a object!! Hope ya caught soon before you someone else is hurt!! Kelz83
  • Score: 3

11:45am Mon 16 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Sarah94 wrote:
These comments are discusting !! How can you all be worrying about damage to the van !! He's lying in that hospital bed fighting for his life what for because of damage to a van ?!? That's not right at all!!!!!!! He is a respectful young man and had a bright future , imagine if it happened to your kids have some respect you vial people !! Thoughts with his family and hope this scum is found !!!!!
l think that most of these comments are more for the boy and against the actions of the van driver, who reacted in a completely unstable and dangerous way
.His reaction was way over the top to how any normal person would have reacted, and l hope he is caught soon and prosecuted, as stated earlier.
[quote][p][bold]Sarah94[/bold] wrote: These comments are discusting !! How can you all be worrying about damage to the van !! He's lying in that hospital bed fighting for his life what for because of damage to a van ?!? That's not right at all!!!!!!! He is a respectful young man and had a bright future , imagine if it happened to your kids have some respect you vial people !! Thoughts with his family and hope this scum is found !!!!![/p][/quote]l think that most of these comments are more for the boy and against the actions of the van driver, who reacted in a completely unstable and dangerous way .His reaction was way over the top to how any normal person would have reacted, and l hope he is caught soon and prosecuted, as stated earlier. Almeda11
  • Score: -3

12:17pm Mon 16 Jun 14

born and raised criminal says...

That will teach him for going round punching peoples vans.
That will teach him for going round punching peoples vans. born and raised criminal
  • Score: -7

12:52pm Mon 16 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

He is not a respectful young man. He attacked someone else's property. The wrong someone else as it turns out. No doubt the reaction was over the top and both parties in this incident should be arrested and charged as applicable.

Unfortunately, at the back of my mind, I keep wondering what would have happened if the vehicle belonged to a frail old lady who then confronted him for attacking it. Would we then be reading about an old lady in hospital rather than this man?

No doubt he has paid an extreme price, but he did cause the situation.

Hope he recovers fully. Hope both parties are arrested and dealt with by the courts.
He is not a respectful young man. He attacked someone else's property. The wrong someone else as it turns out. No doubt the reaction was over the top and both parties in this incident should be arrested and charged as applicable. Unfortunately, at the back of my mind, I keep wondering what would have happened if the vehicle belonged to a frail old lady who then confronted him for attacking it. Would we then be reading about an old lady in hospital rather than this man? No doubt he has paid an extreme price, but he did cause the situation. Hope he recovers fully. Hope both parties are arrested and dealt with by the courts. BIRLIS
  • Score: 30

4:54pm Mon 16 Jun 14

Thurrockbob says...

I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him! Thurrockbob
  • Score: 12

11:24am Tue 17 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Thurrockbob wrote:
I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!!
Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter.
The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.
[quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him![/p][/quote]Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that. Almeda11
  • Score: -6

3:29pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Drunken Master says...

The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.
The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight. Drunken Master
  • Score: 3

5:23pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Thurrockbob says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Thurrockbob wrote:
I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!!
Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter.
The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.
Don't patronise me, these little turds think they can just damage other peoples property and get away with it. Well this guy didn't stand for it, most of these little scroats only understand violence, so he got it. He hopefully will think twice now. Ok dear!
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him![/p][/quote]Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.[/p][/quote]Don't patronise me, these little turds think they can just damage other peoples property and get away with it. Well this guy didn't stand for it, most of these little scroats only understand violence, so he got it. He hopefully will think twice now. Ok dear! Thurrockbob
  • Score: 7

6:07pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Thurrockbob wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
Thurrockbob wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.
Don't patronise me, these little turds think they can just damage other peoples property and get away with it. Well this guy didn't stand for it, most of these little scroats only understand violence, so he got it. He hopefully will think twice now. Ok dear!
l`m not patronising anybody, just saying what l think, which everyone on here has the perfect right to do, and l stand by ALL my comments on this subject !!
[quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him![/p][/quote]Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.[/p][/quote]Don't patronise me, these little turds think they can just damage other peoples property and get away with it. Well this guy didn't stand for it, most of these little scroats only understand violence, so he got it. He hopefully will think twice now. Ok dear![/p][/quote]l`m not patronising anybody, just saying what l think, which everyone on here has the perfect right to do, and l stand by ALL my comments on this subject !! Almeda11
  • Score: -7

6:16pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Drunken Master wrote:
The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.
Completely agree with your comment, and not only was he a coward, but a dangerous, violent and aggressive coward, no sane person in their right mind would even think of that let alone do it. A total nutter.
Also, l hope the Echo is taking note of all the " defenders" of the van driver, could possibly lead to something?
[quote][p][bold]Drunken Master[/bold] wrote: The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with your comment, and not only was he a coward, but a dangerous, violent and aggressive coward, no sane person in their right mind would even think of that let alone do it. A total nutter. Also, l hope the Echo is taking note of all the " defenders" of the van driver, could possibly lead to something? Almeda11
  • Score: -7

7:19pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Thurrockbob wrote:
I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
Violence teaches people nothing -- except how to hate.
[quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him![/p][/quote]Violence teaches people nothing -- except how to hate. Almeda11
  • Score: -5

8:35pm Tue 17 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Drunken Master wrote:
The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.
Completely agree with your comment, and not only was he a coward, but a dangerous, violent and aggressive coward, no sane person in their right mind would even think of that let alone do it. A total nutter.
Also, l hope the Echo is taking note of all the " defenders" of the van driver, could possibly lead to something?
Do you really think anyone here has actually commited an offence?

I've got to say that I can't help thinking that none of this would have happened if the teen hadn't have attacked van. Sure, the van driver acted insane and needs to be punished, but, the van driver was forced into a situation he didn't choose to be. When you do that with random strangers, you are just asking for trouble as you have no clue of their mental state.

Under no circumstances am I saying that the teen deserved it, but I do wonder the outcome, as someone else has said, if it were a little old lady who owned the van. When did respect from strangers property cease to exist?
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drunken Master[/bold] wrote: The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with your comment, and not only was he a coward, but a dangerous, violent and aggressive coward, no sane person in their right mind would even think of that let alone do it. A total nutter. Also, l hope the Echo is taking note of all the " defenders" of the van driver, could possibly lead to something?[/p][/quote]Do you really think anyone here has actually commited an offence? I've got to say that I can't help thinking that none of this would have happened if the teen hadn't have attacked van. Sure, the van driver acted insane and needs to be punished, but, the van driver was forced into a situation he didn't choose to be. When you do that with random strangers, you are just asking for trouble as you have no clue of their mental state. Under no circumstances am I saying that the teen deserved it, but I do wonder the outcome, as someone else has said, if it were a little old lady who owned the van. When did respect from strangers property cease to exist? DannyButcher
  • Score: 12

8:45pm Tue 17 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Thurrockbob wrote:
I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!!
Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter.
The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.
Maybe people can't see it because it wasn't the van driver than instigated the incident, according to the article. Sure, the driver probably had pent up anger (unless psychotic), but if the teen hadn't have touched the van we wouldn't be commenting about it now.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him![/p][/quote]Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.[/p][/quote]Maybe people can't see it because it wasn't the van driver than instigated the incident, according to the article. Sure, the driver probably had pent up anger (unless psychotic), but if the teen hadn't have touched the van we wouldn't be commenting about it now. DannyButcher
  • Score: 17

10:33pm Tue 17 Jun 14

pendulum says...

If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.
If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught. pendulum
  • Score: 5

10:37pm Tue 17 Jun 14

pendulum says...

For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.
For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further. pendulum
  • Score: 5

2:11am Wed 18 Jun 14

ORACUS says...

pendulum wrote:
For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.
Unfortunately your theory falls flat because the driver failed to hand himself into the police.
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately your theory falls flat because the driver failed to hand himself into the police. ORACUS
  • Score: -1

8:37am Wed 18 Jun 14

Parold says...

pendulum wrote:
If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.
This is embarrassing.
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.[/p][/quote]This is embarrassing. Parold
  • Score: 3

10:19am Wed 18 Jun 14

Adam1095 says...

Some of you are sick individuals none of you would have the balls to say some of this stuff about damage to the van to anyone's face, anyone can be keyboard warriors this is someone's life that is in danger and you can all crack jokes, I hope this guy is found. Any of you can say 'little turd got what he deserved' but not one of you would stand there and say it to anyone's face. You should be ashamed of your self that a 19 year old boy could lose his life over this. Makes me sick that there are people like you in this world who is in society, What if it was your child, or brother? If you have nothing better to do than sit on here and crack jokes over peoples lives, take a look in the mirror and evaluate yours.
Some of you are sick individuals none of you would have the balls to say some of this stuff about damage to the van to anyone's face, anyone can be keyboard warriors this is someone's life that is in danger and you can all crack jokes, I hope this guy is found. Any of you can say 'little turd got what he deserved' but not one of you would stand there and say it to anyone's face. You should be ashamed of your self that a 19 year old boy could lose his life over this. Makes me sick that there are people like you in this world who is in society, What if it was your child, or brother? If you have nothing better to do than sit on here and crack jokes over peoples lives, take a look in the mirror and evaluate yours. Adam1095
  • Score: -4

10:50am Wed 18 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

Of course it is not right he was so badly injured, but can't you see that he if hadn't behaved in an antisocial manner none of this would have happened? Actions do have consequences, and they are not always fair.

His actions have potentially led to at least two lives being ruined. He has, unfortunately, had a tough lesson.
Of course it is not right he was so badly injured, but can't you see that he if hadn't behaved in an antisocial manner none of this would have happened? Actions do have consequences, and they are not always fair. His actions have potentially led to at least two lives being ruined. He has, unfortunately, had a tough lesson. BIRLIS
  • Score: 13

11:23am Wed 18 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant. DannyButcher
  • Score: 11

12:39pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Parold says...

DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head. Parold
  • Score: -5

1:02pm Wed 18 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered.

People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver.

This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen. DannyButcher
  • Score: 9

1:05pm Wed 18 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect. DannyButcher
  • Score: 3

1:20pm Wed 18 Jun 14

pendulum says...

ORACUS wrote:
pendulum wrote:
For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.
Unfortunately your theory falls flat because the driver failed to hand himself into the police.
It does not. Why would the van driver want to hand himself in knowing full well the hassle he will experience if he does so?

I was approached a long time ago, by a drunk and homeless looking character in the street, who asked for money, then he demanded money, then he grabbed my arm and started shouting at me. I pushed him over. Because I didn't go to the police about it, does that make me guilty? I don't think so.
[quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately your theory falls flat because the driver failed to hand himself into the police.[/p][/quote]It does not. Why would the van driver want to hand himself in knowing full well the hassle he will experience if he does so? I was approached a long time ago, by a drunk and homeless looking character in the street, who asked for money, then he demanded money, then he grabbed my arm and started shouting at me. I pushed him over. Because I didn't go to the police about it, does that make me guilty? I don't think so. pendulum
  • Score: 2

1:39pm Wed 18 Jun 14

BuckoTheMoose says...

pendulum wrote:
If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.
Agreed!
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.[/p][/quote]Agreed! BuckoTheMoose
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 18 Jun 14

ORACUS says...

pendulum wrote:
ORACUS wrote:
pendulum wrote:
For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.
Unfortunately your theory falls flat because the driver failed to hand himself into the police.
It does not. Why would the van driver want to hand himself in knowing full well the hassle he will experience if he does so?

I was approached a long time ago, by a drunk and homeless looking character in the street, who asked for money, then he demanded money, then he grabbed my arm and started shouting at me. I pushed him over. Because I didn't go to the police about it, does that make me guilty? I don't think so.
Failing to report a road accident when a person has been injured is an offence all drivers know this running away is the action of a guilty man.
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ORACUS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: For all we know, the 19-year-old punched the van (he admits this), the owner came down to move the van, and in his angry and emotional state, the 19 year old tried to attack him/get in his way/attack the van further.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately your theory falls flat because the driver failed to hand himself into the police.[/p][/quote]It does not. Why would the van driver want to hand himself in knowing full well the hassle he will experience if he does so? I was approached a long time ago, by a drunk and homeless looking character in the street, who asked for money, then he demanded money, then he grabbed my arm and started shouting at me. I pushed him over. Because I didn't go to the police about it, does that make me guilty? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]Failing to report a road accident when a person has been injured is an offence all drivers know this running away is the action of a guilty man. ORACUS
  • Score: 5

2:00pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Parold says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here.

For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!!

If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face? Parold
  • Score: -3

2:09pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Kelz83 says...

VAB2708 wrote:
I also happen to know the lad and certainly doesn't deserve this. The driver should be charged with attempted murder & will get his just deserts. It this a normal sane person does coldly run someover because of a van, come on. My thoughts are with his family and hope you recover soon kid. We are all rooting for you.
any news? is he local lad? x
[quote][p][bold]VAB2708[/bold] wrote: I also happen to know the lad and certainly doesn't deserve this. The driver should be charged with attempted murder & will get his just deserts. It this a normal sane person does coldly run someover because of a van, come on. My thoughts are with his family and hope you recover soon kid. We are all rooting for you.[/p][/quote]any news? is he local lad? x Kelz83
  • Score: 3

2:12pm Wed 18 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here.

For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!!

If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
You say you understand and then come out with that?

Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?[/p][/quote]You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion? DannyButcher
  • Score: 2

4:33pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Thurrockbob says...

Adam1095 wrote:
Some of you are sick individuals none of you would have the balls to say some of this stuff about damage to the van to anyone's face, anyone can be keyboard warriors this is someone's life that is in danger and you can all crack jokes, I hope this guy is found. Any of you can say 'little turd got what he deserved' but not one of you would stand there and say it to anyone's face. You should be ashamed of your self that a 19 year old boy could lose his life over this. Makes me sick that there are people like you in this world who is in society, What if it was your child, or brother? If you have nothing better to do than sit on here and crack jokes over peoples lives, take a look in the mirror and evaluate yours.
Oh shut up you do gooder mug!
[quote][p][bold]Adam1095[/bold] wrote: Some of you are sick individuals none of you would have the balls to say some of this stuff about damage to the van to anyone's face, anyone can be keyboard warriors this is someone's life that is in danger and you can all crack jokes, I hope this guy is found. Any of you can say 'little turd got what he deserved' but not one of you would stand there and say it to anyone's face. You should be ashamed of your self that a 19 year old boy could lose his life over this. Makes me sick that there are people like you in this world who is in society, What if it was your child, or brother? If you have nothing better to do than sit on here and crack jokes over peoples lives, take a look in the mirror and evaluate yours.[/p][/quote]Oh shut up you do gooder mug! Thurrockbob
  • Score: -7

5:03pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Parold says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here.

For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!!

If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
You say you understand and then come out with that?

Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?
I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?[/p][/quote]You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I do need it explained please. Parold
  • Score: -4

5:12pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Parold says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
In my opinion, the cause is punching the van and the effect is someone being angry - what someone then decides to do with that anger is another matter.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]In my opinion, the cause is punching the van and the effect is someone being angry - what someone then decides to do with that anger is another matter. Parold
  • Score: -3

9:23pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
Do you know, l find it hard to believe than one fist on one van could even make a dent !! or hardly! you would need a sledgehammer to cause any real damage, it is laughable that so many on here really believe that it could.

And to even compare this so called " damage" with a violent assault, which was actually an INTENTION to take someone`s life is sickening.
There is NO comparison.
Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter.
Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Do you know, l find it hard to believe than one fist on one van could even make a dent !! or hardly! you would need a sledgehammer to cause any real damage, it is laughable that so many on here really believe that it could. And to even compare this so called " damage" with a violent assault, which was actually an INTENTION to take someone`s life is sickening. There is NO comparison. Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter. Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local. Almeda11
  • Score: -5

9:44pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
Drunken Master wrote: The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.
Completely agree with your comment, and not only was he a coward, but a dangerous, violent and aggressive coward, no sane person in their right mind would even think of that let alone do it. A total nutter. Also, l hope the Echo is taking note of all the " defenders" of the van driver, could possibly lead to something?
Do you really think anyone here has actually commited an offence? I've got to say that I can't help thinking that none of this would have happened if the teen hadn't have attacked van. Sure, the van driver acted insane and needs to be punished, but, the van driver was forced into a situation he didn't choose to be. When you do that with random strangers, you are just asking for trouble as you have no clue of their mental state. Under no circumstances am I saying that the teen deserved it, but I do wonder the outcome, as someone else has said, if it were a little old lady who owned the van. When did respect from strangers property cease to exist?
Two wrongs never make a right, even if he was in a situation he didn`t choose to be in he still had a CHOICE on how he would react, and he chose to act in this aggressive and violent way, doing what he did intentionally, which was the intention to maim or kill, which was far worse than anything this boy had done.

l believe human life is far more valuable than property, the two are incomparable, and in answer to your question about anyone on here commiting an offence, well the remark about the defenders did have a "possibly" lead to something and a question mark, so who knows, it is possible, l`m sure people are interested, so it wouldn`t be surprising would it.
Agreed, the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter.
Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drunken Master[/bold] wrote: The boy deserved a slap not to be run over and put in hospital. The van driver is obviously a coward who would rather use his vehicle that have a stand up fight.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with your comment, and not only was he a coward, but a dangerous, violent and aggressive coward, no sane person in their right mind would even think of that let alone do it. A total nutter. Also, l hope the Echo is taking note of all the " defenders" of the van driver, could possibly lead to something?[/p][/quote]Do you really think anyone here has actually commited an offence? I've got to say that I can't help thinking that none of this would have happened if the teen hadn't have attacked van. Sure, the van driver acted insane and needs to be punished, but, the van driver was forced into a situation he didn't choose to be. When you do that with random strangers, you are just asking for trouble as you have no clue of their mental state. Under no circumstances am I saying that the teen deserved it, but I do wonder the outcome, as someone else has said, if it were a little old lady who owned the van. When did respect from strangers property cease to exist?[/p][/quote]Two wrongs never make a right, even if he was in a situation he didn`t choose to be in he still had a CHOICE on how he would react, and he chose to act in this aggressive and violent way, doing what he did intentionally, which was the intention to maim or kill, which was far worse than anything this boy had done. l believe human life is far more valuable than property, the two are incomparable, and in answer to your question about anyone on here commiting an offence, well the remark about the defenders did have a "possibly" lead to something and a question mark, so who knows, it is possible, l`m sure people are interested, so it wouldn`t be surprising would it. Agreed, the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter. Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local. Almeda11
  • Score: -1

9:58pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
Thurrockbob wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him!
Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.
Maybe people can't see it because it wasn't the van driver than instigated the incident, according to the article. Sure, the driver probably had pent up anger (unless psychotic), but if the teen hadn't have touched the van we wouldn't be commenting about it now.
Do you know, during the course of MY life, 67 yeears, l have sometimes got VERY, VERY angry, sometimes with my family, sometimes with situations or strangers, only sometimes mind , but l would NEVER, EVER react in that way.

For Gods sake, we are ADULTS, and are supposed to have some SELF CONTROL !!

Sorry, but whatever people do to make other people angry, there is NEVER a reason to act like that, in an immature and bratish way, and l sincerely hope this maniac is caught, prosecuted and put inside for a while to cool off and realise that you don`t try killing people just because they made you angry -- he deserves everything he gets !!!
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: I would have run the little scroat over too, that will teach him![/p][/quote]Then you are just as bad as the van driver who is clearly not quite right in the head to react in this extreme way!! Obviously a lot of anger and pent up aggression in people like that,.they need psychiatric help, but regardless l hope he is caught and prosecuted for assault and attempted manslaughter. The boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but what he did is FAR worse than what the boy did, l wonder why you can`t see that.[/p][/quote]Maybe people can't see it because it wasn't the van driver than instigated the incident, according to the article. Sure, the driver probably had pent up anger (unless psychotic), but if the teen hadn't have touched the van we wouldn't be commenting about it now.[/p][/quote]Do you know, during the course of MY life, 67 yeears, l have sometimes got VERY, VERY angry, sometimes with my family, sometimes with situations or strangers, only sometimes mind , but l would NEVER, EVER react in that way. For Gods sake, we are ADULTS, and are supposed to have some SELF CONTROL !! Sorry, but whatever people do to make other people angry, there is NEVER a reason to act like that, in an immature and bratish way, and l sincerely hope this maniac is caught, prosecuted and put inside for a while to cool off and realise that you don`t try killing people just because they made you angry -- he deserves everything he gets !!! Almeda11
  • Score: -2

10:02pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Thurrockbob wrote:
Adam1095 wrote: Some of you are sick individuals none of you would have the balls to say some of this stuff about damage to the van to anyone's face, anyone can be keyboard warriors this is someone's life that is in danger and you can all crack jokes, I hope this guy is found. Any of you can say 'little turd got what he deserved' but not one of you would stand there and say it to anyone's face. You should be ashamed of your self that a 19 year old boy could lose his life over this. Makes me sick that there are people like you in this world who is in society, What if it was your child, or brother? If you have nothing better to do than sit on here and crack jokes over peoples lives, take a look in the mirror and evaluate yours.
Oh shut up you do gooder mug!
Better to be a " do gooder" than a " do badder"
[quote][p][bold]Thurrockbob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adam1095[/bold] wrote: Some of you are sick individuals none of you would have the balls to say some of this stuff about damage to the van to anyone's face, anyone can be keyboard warriors this is someone's life that is in danger and you can all crack jokes, I hope this guy is found. Any of you can say 'little turd got what he deserved' but not one of you would stand there and say it to anyone's face. You should be ashamed of your self that a 19 year old boy could lose his life over this. Makes me sick that there are people like you in this world who is in society, What if it was your child, or brother? If you have nothing better to do than sit on here and crack jokes over peoples lives, take a look in the mirror and evaluate yours.[/p][/quote]Oh shut up you do gooder mug![/p][/quote]Better to be a " do gooder" than a " do badder" Almeda11
  • Score: -3

10:06pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

pendulum wrote:
If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.
You have no time for vandals, ( neither have l incidently) but you obviously have time for an attempted murderer. You disgust me.
[quote][p][bold]pendulum[/bold] wrote: If I knew who the driver was, I wouldn't report him. I have no time for vandals. How dare he go around punching other people's property. I hope the 19-year-old MAN survives to learn the lesson but I equally hope the van driver is never caught.[/p][/quote]You have no time for vandals, ( neither have l incidently) but you obviously have time for an attempted murderer. You disgust me. Almeda11
  • Score: 1

10:10pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone.

Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older! Almeda11
  • Score: -2

10:17pm Wed 18 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
In my opinion, the cause is punching the van and the effect is someone being angry - what someone then decides to do with that anger is another matter.
Completely agree with that ! We all have CHOICES and what he chose to DO went way beyond the " effect" and there was also intention, which is also beyond just simple cause and effect.
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]In my opinion, the cause is punching the van and the effect is someone being angry - what someone then decides to do with that anger is another matter.[/p][/quote]Completely agree with that ! We all have CHOICES and what he chose to DO went way beyond the " effect" and there was also intention, which is also beyond just simple cause and effect. Almeda11
  • Score: -4

1:31pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Drunken Master says...

This story just goes to show how society has not really changed since the dark ages, we just have bigger weapons. We still have the tribal instinct where we must protect our property at all costs.
This story just goes to show how society has not really changed since the dark ages, we just have bigger weapons. We still have the tribal instinct where we must protect our property at all costs. Drunken Master
  • Score: 5

1:33pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here.

For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!!

If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
You say you understand and then come out with that?

Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?
I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.
The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator.

In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends.

You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?[/p][/quote]You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.[/p][/quote]The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator. In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends. You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies. DannyButcher
  • Score: 1

1:38pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
Do you know, l find it hard to believe than one fist on one van could even make a dent !! or hardly! you would need a sledgehammer to cause any real damage, it is laughable that so many on here really believe that it could.

And to even compare this so called " damage" with a violent assault, which was actually an INTENTION to take someone`s life is sickening.
There is NO comparison.
Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter.
Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.
Uhm, no-one is comparing the two crimes commitied. What some people are saying is that if the young man did not attack the van, we would not be talking about it here. Pretty simple. Not exactly something you can deny.

You seem to be taking the viewpoint that anyone who says that is actually rooting for the driver, which is far from the truth. Considering I have said the driver needs to be prosecuted a good few times, your reply to me is pretty absurd.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Do you know, l find it hard to believe than one fist on one van could even make a dent !! or hardly! you would need a sledgehammer to cause any real damage, it is laughable that so many on here really believe that it could. And to even compare this so called " damage" with a violent assault, which was actually an INTENTION to take someone`s life is sickening. There is NO comparison. Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter. Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.[/p][/quote]Uhm, no-one is comparing the two crimes commitied. What some people are saying is that if the young man did not attack the van, we would not be talking about it here. Pretty simple. Not exactly something you can deny. You seem to be taking the viewpoint that anyone who says that is actually rooting for the driver, which is far from the truth. Considering I have said the driver needs to be prosecuted a good few times, your reply to me is pretty absurd. DannyButcher
  • Score: 1

1:48pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone.

Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now?

Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events. DannyButcher
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Thu 19 Jun 14

ORACUS says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone.

Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now?

Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
Assumptions like the van driver knew who or what hit his van.
Assumptions like the van belonged to the driver and wasn’t stolen.
Assumptions like did the young man intended to cause damage.
Assumptions like the young man caused any damage.
No intent and no damage equals no offence.
Assumptions like the driver cared whether he was running over the right person or not.

Fact the driver knew what he had done intentional or otherwise and ran away.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.[/p][/quote]Assumptions like the van driver knew who or what hit his van. Assumptions like the van belonged to the driver and wasn’t stolen. Assumptions like did the young man intended to cause damage. Assumptions like the young man caused any damage. No intent and no damage equals no offence. Assumptions like the driver cared whether he was running over the right person or not. Fact the driver knew what he had done intentional or otherwise and ran away. ORACUS
  • Score: -1

4:05pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Would punching a van not equal intent to damage?

We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life.

It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.
Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others. DannyButcher
  • Score: 4

4:10pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Parold says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here.

For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!!

If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
You say you understand and then come out with that?

Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?
I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.
The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator.

In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends.

You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.
Of course it's relevant. Someone damaged my property (in a far worse manner than punching it), the 'instigator' and I was the 'retaliator'. It's just I chose to retaliate in a very different manner. Maybe I should have stated what I did to retaliate - called the police. Apologies.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?[/p][/quote]You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.[/p][/quote]The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator. In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends. You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.[/p][/quote]Of course it's relevant. Someone damaged my property (in a far worse manner than punching it), the 'instigator' and I was the 'retaliator'. It's just I chose to retaliate in a very different manner. Maybe I should have stated what I did to retaliate - called the police. Apologies. Parold
  • Score: -4

4:37pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic.

I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here.

For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!!

If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
You say you understand and then come out with that?

Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?
I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.
The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator.

In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends.

You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.
Of course it's relevant. Someone damaged my property (in a far worse manner than punching it), the 'instigator' and I was the 'retaliator'. It's just I chose to retaliate in a very different manner. Maybe I should have stated what I did to retaliate - called the police. Apologies.
Attacking the van was a deliberate, anti-social act. The drink driver, I'm guessing, didn't set out with 'I'm going to crash into that persons car deliberately.' But do correct me if I'm wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?[/p][/quote]You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.[/p][/quote]The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator. In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends. You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.[/p][/quote]Of course it's relevant. Someone damaged my property (in a far worse manner than punching it), the 'instigator' and I was the 'retaliator'. It's just I chose to retaliate in a very different manner. Maybe I should have stated what I did to retaliate - called the police. Apologies.[/p][/quote]Attacking the van was a deliberate, anti-social act. The drink driver, I'm guessing, didn't set out with 'I'm going to crash into that persons car deliberately.' But do correct me if I'm wrong. DannyButcher
  • Score: 3

4:49pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
Do you know, l find it hard to believe than one fist on one van could even make a dent !! or hardly! you would need a sledgehammer to cause any real damage, it is laughable that so many on here really believe that it could. And to even compare this so called " damage" with a violent assault, which was actually an INTENTION to take someone`s life is sickening. There is NO comparison. Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter. Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.
Uhm, no-one is comparing the two crimes commitied. What some people are saying is that if the young man did not attack the van, we would not be talking about it here. Pretty simple. Not exactly something you can deny. You seem to be taking the viewpoint that anyone who says that is actually rooting for the driver, which is far from the truth. Considering I have said the driver needs to be prosecuted a good few times, your reply to me is pretty absurd.
Well,quite a few ARE rooting for the driver, to the extent that someone even said that HE would run him over, and similar. My comments are about CHOICES and INTENTIONS, this van driver CHOSE to react as he did, he had NO SELF CONTROL, and acted like a maniac, not a normal sane ADULT. l have no time for him, or anyone who defends him, and l hope he is caught very soon, he deserves everything he gets !!
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]Do you know, l find it hard to believe than one fist on one van could even make a dent !! or hardly! you would need a sledgehammer to cause any real damage, it is laughable that so many on here really believe that it could. And to even compare this so called " damage" with a violent assault, which was actually an INTENTION to take someone`s life is sickening. There is NO comparison. Yes the boy shouldn`t have punched the van, but the van driver needs to be found and prosecuted as soon as possible, and charged with assault or attempted manslaughter. Anyone who reacts in this extreme and dangerous way is certainly not quite right in the head, and l`m certain they`ll catch him soon as the van is local.[/p][/quote]Uhm, no-one is comparing the two crimes commitied. What some people are saying is that if the young man did not attack the van, we would not be talking about it here. Pretty simple. Not exactly something you can deny. You seem to be taking the viewpoint that anyone who says that is actually rooting for the driver, which is far from the truth. Considering I have said the driver needs to be prosecuted a good few times, your reply to me is pretty absurd.[/p][/quote]Well,quite a few ARE rooting for the driver, to the extent that someone even said that HE would run him over, and similar. My comments are about CHOICES and INTENTIONS, this van driver CHOSE to react as he did, he had NO SELF CONTROL, and acted like a maniac, not a normal sane ADULT. l have no time for him, or anyone who defends him, and l hope he is caught very soon, he deserves everything he gets !! Almeda11
  • Score: -4

4:58pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
You clearly do not understand cause and effect.
Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?
You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?
I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.
The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator. In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends. You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.
Of course it's relevant. Someone damaged my property (in a far worse manner than punching it), the 'instigator' and I was the 'retaliator'. It's just I chose to retaliate in a very different manner. Maybe I should have stated what I did to retaliate - called the police. Apologies.
PAROLD, good for you, someone with intelligence, and you made the right CHOICE, unlike the idiot and dangerous van driver, l wish l knew who he is, l would report him like a shot, and l trust the Echo is keeping a close eye on the various comments on here !!
[quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]You clearly do not understand cause and effect.[/p][/quote]Don't be so condescending. Of course I understand, I just don't agree that it should be primary factor here. For the record, I have previously had my parked car written off by a drunk driver. I didn't say I had sympathy for the lad, I just find it worrying that people seem to think it's acceptable to react in this way to someone punching a vehicle!! If a 19 year old woman picked some flowers out of my front garden, would it be ok for me to punch her in the face?[/p][/quote]You say you understand and then come out with that? Coming out with the example of a drunk driver shows that you really cannot follow a cogent argument. Do you really need it explained to you why it really is irrelevent to the discussion?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I do need it explained please.[/p][/quote]The vehicle attacker is the instigator, the van driver the retaliator. In you drunk driver escapade, the driver is the instigator but that's where any relevance at all ends. You tell me to not be patronising, then fail to realise you are typing pointless, irrelevant replies.[/p][/quote]Of course it's relevant. Someone damaged my property (in a far worse manner than punching it), the 'instigator' and I was the 'retaliator'. It's just I chose to retaliate in a very different manner. Maybe I should have stated what I did to retaliate - called the police. Apologies.[/p][/quote]PAROLD, good for you, someone with intelligence, and you made the right CHOICE, unlike the idiot and dangerous van driver, l wish l knew who he is, l would report him like a shot, and l trust the Echo is keeping a close eye on the various comments on here !! Almeda11
  • Score: -3

5:10pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
NO damage to property is ever as important, or comparable as damage to life, and this van driver had a CHOICE, but chose to try and KILL someone.
And ANYBODY who believes that just because this 19 year old punched a van therefore " he deserves it" or " l would have run him over " ect as some have said, are certainly NOT ADULTS in my eyes, they are nasty, spiteful, revengeful and immature people, very likely defensive too and no doubt with many problems and frustrations in their own lives.

A normal ADULT would have the COMMON SENSE and sense of justice to realise that ok, the young man did the wring thing, but by far the worse thing was the GROSS, DANGEROUS AND DELIBERATE,OVER REACTION .
That should not be excused, under any circumstances.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]NO damage to property is ever as important, or comparable as damage to life, and this van driver had a CHOICE, but chose to try and KILL someone. And ANYBODY who believes that just because this 19 year old punched a van therefore " he deserves it" or " l would have run him over " ect as some have said, are certainly NOT ADULTS in my eyes, they are nasty, spiteful, revengeful and immature people, very likely defensive too and no doubt with many problems and frustrations in their own lives. A normal ADULT would have the COMMON SENSE and sense of justice to realise that ok, the young man did the wring thing, but by far the worse thing was the GROSS, DANGEROUS AND DELIBERATE,OVER REACTION . That should not be excused, under any circumstances. Almeda11
  • Score: -3

5:22pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.
Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved.

To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case.

However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.[/p][/quote]Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught. Almeda11
  • Score: -6

5:28pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Drunken Master wrote:
This story just goes to show how society has not really changed since the dark ages, we just have bigger weapons. We still have the tribal instinct where we must protect our property at all costs.
Not at ALL costs, and certainly not for a punch to a van, which probably barely made a dent, you`d need a sledge hammer to inflict real damage.
[quote][p][bold]Drunken Master[/bold] wrote: This story just goes to show how society has not really changed since the dark ages, we just have bigger weapons. We still have the tribal instinct where we must protect our property at all costs.[/p][/quote]Not at ALL costs, and certainly not for a punch to a van, which probably barely made a dent, you`d need a sledge hammer to inflict real damage. Almeda11
  • Score: -5

5:39pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.
Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved.

To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case.

However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.
Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot.

I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything.

And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.[/p][/quote]Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.[/p][/quote]Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post? DannyButcher
  • Score: 4

5:46pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe.

lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time.

Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting.

Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.[/p][/quote]Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL. Almeda11
  • Score: -6

5:58pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.
Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.
Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?
My " continual repetition" is because certain people, ie mainly YOU keep on and on replying, so, being the good, observant and conscienscious person that l am, l will always reply back, so keep it coming if that`s what floats your boat, bit pathetic imp.

lt seems to me that you take a particular delight in keeping this going, well carry on, all weekend if you want.

I ALWAYS read posts, from beginning to end, so certainly don`t need any advice from the likes of you, are you a troll by any chance, you have the makings of an excellent one, and certainly seem to have the time and inclination, sad really, to spend so much time on here, go for a long walk, would do you the power of good, and save YOUR constant " ranting too !!

Bye for now.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.[/p][/quote]Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.[/p][/quote]Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?[/p][/quote]My " continual repetition" is because certain people, ie mainly YOU keep on and on replying, so, being the good, observant and conscienscious person that l am, l will always reply back, so keep it coming if that`s what floats your boat, bit pathetic imp. lt seems to me that you take a particular delight in keeping this going, well carry on, all weekend if you want. I ALWAYS read posts, from beginning to end, so certainly don`t need any advice from the likes of you, are you a troll by any chance, you have the makings of an excellent one, and certainly seem to have the time and inclination, sad really, to spend so much time on here, go for a long walk, would do you the power of good, and save YOUR constant " ranting too !! Bye for now. Almeda11
  • Score: -8

5:59pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe.

lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time.

Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting.

Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.
'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.[/p][/quote]Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.[/p][/quote]'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws? DannyButcher
  • Score: 8

6:05pm Thu 19 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.
Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.
Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?
My " continual repetition" is because certain people, ie mainly YOU keep on and on replying, so, being the good, observant and conscienscious person that l am, l will always reply back, so keep it coming if that`s what floats your boat, bit pathetic imp.

lt seems to me that you take a particular delight in keeping this going, well carry on, all weekend if you want.

I ALWAYS read posts, from beginning to end, so certainly don`t need any advice from the likes of you, are you a troll by any chance, you have the makings of an excellent one, and certainly seem to have the time and inclination, sad really, to spend so much time on here, go for a long walk, would do you the power of good, and save YOUR constant " ranting too !!

Bye for now.
You accuse me of being a troll, and say that I have spent too much time on here. My friend, you have just insulted someone for something that describes your own actions fantastically. Well done, many people couldn't have made themselves look that ludicrous even if they had tried.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.[/p][/quote]Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.[/p][/quote]Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?[/p][/quote]My " continual repetition" is because certain people, ie mainly YOU keep on and on replying, so, being the good, observant and conscienscious person that l am, l will always reply back, so keep it coming if that`s what floats your boat, bit pathetic imp. lt seems to me that you take a particular delight in keeping this going, well carry on, all weekend if you want. I ALWAYS read posts, from beginning to end, so certainly don`t need any advice from the likes of you, are you a troll by any chance, you have the makings of an excellent one, and certainly seem to have the time and inclination, sad really, to spend so much time on here, go for a long walk, would do you the power of good, and save YOUR constant " ranting too !! Bye for now.[/p][/quote]You accuse me of being a troll, and say that I have spent too much time on here. My friend, you have just insulted someone for something that describes your own actions fantastically. Well done, many people couldn't have made themselves look that ludicrous even if they had tried. DannyButcher
  • Score: 10

6:12pm Thu 19 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome.

Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way.

Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead?

Guess we'll never know.
Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know. BIRLIS
  • Score: 10

8:56pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

BIRLIS wrote:
Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.
Actually A LOT of people are agreeing with me, rather than against me.

But what they DO NOT seem to even acknowledge is that this van driver acted outrageously, and INTENDED TO KILL SOMEONE.
They are placing far too much emphasis on what the boy did, and l seriously doubt that a fist could do much damage to a van, you need something much harder to do that.

l will NEVER change my views, l still think these people are a revengeful, UNintelligent and immature lot, who are lop sided in their attitudes by focusing so much on what this 19 year old did, yet make comments like " l would have run the little scroat over too" UNBELIEVABLE, the mentality of SOME people on her.
l think all you **** should GROW UP, and do l really care what people of that mentality think? people l don`t even know, but who act as though they do --- all anonymously of course, wouldn`t dare say it to my face --- NOT ON YOUR NELLIE !!!
[quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.[/p][/quote]Actually A LOT of people are agreeing with me, rather than against me. But what they DO NOT seem to even acknowledge is that this van driver acted outrageously, and INTENDED TO KILL SOMEONE. They are placing far too much emphasis on what the boy did, and l seriously doubt that a fist could do much damage to a van, you need something much harder to do that. l will NEVER change my views, l still think these people are a revengeful, UNintelligent and immature lot, who are lop sided in their attitudes by focusing so much on what this 19 year old did, yet make comments like " l would have run the little scroat over too" UNBELIEVABLE, the mentality of SOME people on her. l think all you **** should GROW UP, and do l really care what people of that mentality think? people l don`t even know, but who act as though they do --- all anonymously of course, wouldn`t dare say it to my face --- NOT ON YOUR NELLIE !!! Almeda11
  • Score: -9

9:06pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.
'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?
You are obsessed with this.

And YOU STATED: " Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now "
So OBVIOUSLY l said we have different laws for adults and children. A completely relevant and sensible answer to your statement.

And l NEVER said that 19 was a child,, so why the EMPHASIS above, 19 IS an adult, strange, like you.
l have no inclination to keep going over this, particularly with you, you are getting on my nerves, l don`t know you, don`t want to, and what you think doesn`t interest me, plus l have a REAL life, much nice and interesting than on here.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.[/p][/quote]Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.[/p][/quote]'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?[/p][/quote]You are obsessed with this. And YOU STATED: " Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now " So OBVIOUSLY l said we have different laws for adults and children. A completely relevant and sensible answer to your statement. And l NEVER said that 19 was a child,, so why the EMPHASIS above, 19 IS an adult, strange, like you. l have no inclination to keep going over this, particularly with you, you are getting on my nerves, l don`t know you, don`t want to, and what you think doesn`t interest me, plus l have a REAL life, much nice and interesting than on here. Almeda11
  • Score: -8

9:10pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.
Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.
Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?
My " continual repetition" is because certain people, ie mainly YOU keep on and on replying, so, being the good, observant and conscienscious person that l am, l will always reply back, so keep it coming if that`s what floats your boat, bit pathetic imp. lt seems to me that you take a particular delight in keeping this going, well carry on, all weekend if you want. I ALWAYS read posts, from beginning to end, so certainly don`t need any advice from the likes of you, are you a troll by any chance, you have the makings of an excellent one, and certainly seem to have the time and inclination, sad really, to spend so much time on here, go for a long walk, would do you the power of good, and save YOUR constant " ranting too !! Bye for now.
You accuse me of being a troll, and say that I have spent too much time on here. My friend, you have just insulted someone for something that describes your own actions fantastically. Well done, many people couldn't have made themselves look that ludicrous even if they had tried.
l`m just responding to everything that comes my way, but lately it`s all been coming from one direction, yours.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: Would punching a van not equal intent to damage? We know the driver was obviously totally in the wrong to act like he did, but right now it is assumption that the punching of the van was the only provocation. Regardless, the van driver needs punishing to the full extent of the law, and the young man shouldn't pay for his indiscretion with his life. It's unfortunate in life, but if you do the wrong thing to the wrong person, sometimes you get unexpected results. It shouldn't happen, but it does, which is why people should respect others.[/p][/quote]Punching the van was done instantly, it was a REFLEX action on the part of someone who was very fired up and angry, so no INTENTION was involved. To have intent, you need to have thought about it beforehand, sometimes even planned it, and it is obvious from the article that this was not the case. However, the van driver, when he saw what was happening, although very annoyed, had the time to take in what was happening and then CHOSE to act with intent, the INTENTION being to kill or main, he needs to be caught.[/p][/quote]Unless you were there, you are still assuming a lot. I understand you obviously feel strongly about your opinions, but your continual repetition of the same things over and over again will not change anything. And you may want to learn that when you quote someone, it is usually a good thing to read that post first then reply to that person. Not quote a post, as you did to me earlier, then rant and rant as though I have said the opposite of the things you are ranting about. Otherwise, why bother quoting a post?[/p][/quote]My " continual repetition" is because certain people, ie mainly YOU keep on and on replying, so, being the good, observant and conscienscious person that l am, l will always reply back, so keep it coming if that`s what floats your boat, bit pathetic imp. lt seems to me that you take a particular delight in keeping this going, well carry on, all weekend if you want. I ALWAYS read posts, from beginning to end, so certainly don`t need any advice from the likes of you, are you a troll by any chance, you have the makings of an excellent one, and certainly seem to have the time and inclination, sad really, to spend so much time on here, go for a long walk, would do you the power of good, and save YOUR constant " ranting too !! Bye for now.[/p][/quote]You accuse me of being a troll, and say that I have spent too much time on here. My friend, you have just insulted someone for something that describes your own actions fantastically. Well done, many people couldn't have made themselves look that ludicrous even if they had tried.[/p][/quote]l`m just responding to everything that comes my way, but lately it`s all been coming from one direction, yours. Almeda11
  • Score: -9

9:14pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Almeda11 wrote:
BIRLIS wrote: Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.
Actually A LOT of people are agreeing with me, rather than against me. But what they DO NOT seem to even acknowledge is that this van driver acted outrageously, and INTENDED TO KILL SOMEONE. They are placing far too much emphasis on what the boy did, and l seriously doubt that a fist could do much damage to a van, you need something much harder to do that. l will NEVER change my views, l still think these people are a revengeful, UNintelligent and immature lot, who are lop sided in their attitudes by focusing so much on what this 19 year old did, yet make comments like " l would have run the little scroat over too" UNBELIEVABLE, the mentality of SOME people on her. l think all you **** should GROW UP, and do l really care what people of that mentality think? people l don`t even know, but who act as though they do --- all anonymously of course, wouldn`t dare say it to my face --- NOT ON YOUR NELLIE !!!
Amendment;

Actually A LOT of people are agreeing with me, rather than against me.

But what the others do not seem to even acknowledge is that this van driver acted outrageously, and INTENDED TO KILL SOMEONE.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.[/p][/quote]Actually A LOT of people are agreeing with me, rather than against me. But what they DO NOT seem to even acknowledge is that this van driver acted outrageously, and INTENDED TO KILL SOMEONE. They are placing far too much emphasis on what the boy did, and l seriously doubt that a fist could do much damage to a van, you need something much harder to do that. l will NEVER change my views, l still think these people are a revengeful, UNintelligent and immature lot, who are lop sided in their attitudes by focusing so much on what this 19 year old did, yet make comments like " l would have run the little scroat over too" UNBELIEVABLE, the mentality of SOME people on her. l think all you **** should GROW UP, and do l really care what people of that mentality think? people l don`t even know, but who act as though they do --- all anonymously of course, wouldn`t dare say it to my face --- NOT ON YOUR NELLIE !!![/p][/quote]Amendment; Actually A LOT of people are agreeing with me, rather than against me. But what the others do not seem to even acknowledge is that this van driver acted outrageously, and INTENDED TO KILL SOMEONE. Almeda11
  • Score: -10

9:33pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

BIRLIS wrote:
Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.
l have said, TIME AND AGAIN that this boy was wrong to punch the van in the first place, so your opening statement, about my " lack of acknowledgement" above, is INCORRECT.

HOW COULD YOU MISS THAT??? it`s in MANY POSTS !!

But the van driver`s reaction was TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE, his INTENTION WAS TO KILL, and that can NEVER be justified, no matter what.

He had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to act like a 2 year old having a tantrum. As ADULTS we are SUPPOSED to have SELF CONTROL, but he didn`t and didn`t care.

Your last statement " Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.

We`ll never know, but judging by his aggressive behaviour and the fact that he tried to kill someone in cold blood, l would hazard a guess and say No, he was in a fighting mood and l don`t believe he would have come off worse.

And before you say well the boy was in a fighting mood too, well l would point out that often when a person punches an object, it is in place of actually punching a person, in this case his girlfriend, so l think it`s highly unlikely he would have punched the man who tried to mow him down!!
[quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.[/p][/quote]l have said, TIME AND AGAIN that this boy was wrong to punch the van in the first place, so your opening statement, about my " lack of acknowledgement" above, is INCORRECT. HOW COULD YOU MISS THAT??? it`s in MANY POSTS !! But the van driver`s reaction was TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE, his INTENTION WAS TO KILL, and that can NEVER be justified, no matter what. He had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to act like a 2 year old having a tantrum. As ADULTS we are SUPPOSED to have SELF CONTROL, but he didn`t and didn`t care. Your last statement " Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know. We`ll never know, but judging by his aggressive behaviour and the fact that he tried to kill someone in cold blood, l would hazard a guess and say No, he was in a fighting mood and l don`t believe he would have come off worse. And before you say well the boy was in a fighting mood too, well l would point out that often when a person punches an object, it is in place of actually punching a person, in this case his girlfriend, so l think it`s highly unlikely he would have punched the man who tried to mow him down!! Almeda11
  • Score: -10

9:41pm Thu 19 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Almeda11 wrote:
BIRLIS wrote: Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.
l have said, TIME AND AGAIN that this boy was wrong to punch the van in the first place, so your opening statement, about my " lack of acknowledgement" above, is INCORRECT. HOW COULD YOU MISS THAT??? it`s in MANY POSTS !! But the van driver`s reaction was TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE, his INTENTION WAS TO KILL, and that can NEVER be justified, no matter what. He had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to act like a 2 year old having a tantrum. As ADULTS we are SUPPOSED to have SELF CONTROL, but he didn`t and didn`t care. Your last statement " Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know. We`ll never know, but judging by his aggressive behaviour and the fact that he tried to kill someone in cold blood, l would hazard a guess and say No, he was in a fighting mood and l don`t believe he would have come off worse. And before you say well the boy was in a fighting mood too, well l would point out that often when a person punches an object, it is in place of actually punching a person, in this case his girlfriend, so l think it`s highly unlikely he would have punched the man who tried to mow him down!!
ps, the van driver certainly didn`t act like a civilised human being either in trying to mow someone down in cold blood, utterly shameful behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Almeda11, the reason few people are agreeing with you is your lack of acknowledgement of the boy's aggressive and illegal behaviour, and the fact that he should be prosecuted. It is also likely (but unknown) that given his proven behaviour he did not react well when challenged about his vandalism. How badly we don't know, and that may be a further contributor to the outcome. Most posters here seem to agree with you that the driver should be caught and punished, but they realise that young hooligan started the chain of events that ended in this tragic way. Had he acted like a civilised human being this would not have happened. That cannot be denied. I am sure he did not expect this outcome, buti still wonder how this story would be playing out had the vehicle owner been more passive. Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know.[/p][/quote]l have said, TIME AND AGAIN that this boy was wrong to punch the van in the first place, so your opening statement, about my " lack of acknowledgement" above, is INCORRECT. HOW COULD YOU MISS THAT??? it`s in MANY POSTS !! But the van driver`s reaction was TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE, his INTENTION WAS TO KILL, and that can NEVER be justified, no matter what. He had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to act like a 2 year old having a tantrum. As ADULTS we are SUPPOSED to have SELF CONTROL, but he didn`t and didn`t care. Your last statement " Could they be in hospital instead? Guess we'll never know. We`ll never know, but judging by his aggressive behaviour and the fact that he tried to kill someone in cold blood, l would hazard a guess and say No, he was in a fighting mood and l don`t believe he would have come off worse. And before you say well the boy was in a fighting mood too, well l would point out that often when a person punches an object, it is in place of actually punching a person, in this case his girlfriend, so l think it`s highly unlikely he would have punched the man who tried to mow him down!![/p][/quote]ps, the van driver certainly didn`t act like a civilised human being either in trying to mow someone down in cold blood, utterly shameful behaviour. Almeda11
  • Score: -7

9:55pm Thu 19 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

Do calm down. Why wouldn't I say these things to your face? I have not been rude, insulting or argumentative. Surely we could hold a civil conversation? Or are you like the van diver ;-) perhaps this is some elaborate cover story!

Anyway, one point you misunderstood. When I said what if the vehicle owner was someone more passive, I meant what if they weren't liable to overreact as the van driver did? If a timid old man had come out and asked why his car was damaged would he be in hospital now? As I said, we'll never know.

But in summary, as I said many times, of course than van driver overreacted, but it was an overreaction to an act of vandalism by the 19 year old. If he had behaved civilly none of this would have happened. To lives ruined. Two people need charging. No sympathy for either party to be honest.
Do calm down. Why wouldn't I say these things to your face? I have not been rude, insulting or argumentative. Surely we could hold a civil conversation? Or are you like the van diver ;-) perhaps this is some elaborate cover story! Anyway, one point you misunderstood. When I said what if the vehicle owner was someone more passive, I meant what if they weren't liable to overreact as the van driver did? If a timid old man had come out and asked why his car was damaged would he be in hospital now? As I said, we'll never know. But in summary, as I said many times, of course than van driver overreacted, but it was an overreaction to an act of vandalism by the 19 year old. If he had behaved civilly none of this would have happened. To lives ruined. Two people need charging. No sympathy for either party to be honest. BIRLIS
  • Score: 11

1:12am Fri 20 Jun 14

d_2da_ougle says...

do be frank and honest about this the van driver was in the worng so was the boy for hitting the van however we live in a world where we dont know what will happen if we take the **** out of someone elses property if i hit a van i would expect anything from the police to be called a minor slap, a knife too be plunged into me to being shot sorry but thats how people are these days, unfortunate but a life lesson for the boy is what this is you cant second judge a strangers reaction
do be frank and honest about this the van driver was in the worng so was the boy for hitting the van however we live in a world where we dont know what will happen if we take the **** out of someone elses property if i hit a van i would expect anything from the police to be called a minor slap, a knife too be plunged into me to being shot sorry but thats how people are these days, unfortunate but a life lesson for the boy is what this is you cant second judge a strangers reaction d_2da_ougle
  • Score: 9

7:59am Fri 20 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

BIRLIS wrote:
Do calm down. Why wouldn't I say these things to your face? I have not been rude, insulting or argumentative. Surely we could hold a civil conversation? Or are you like the van diver ;-) perhaps this is some elaborate cover story! Anyway, one point you misunderstood. When I said what if the vehicle owner was someone more passive, I meant what if they weren't liable to overreact as the van driver did? If a timid old man had come out and asked why his car was damaged would he be in hospital now? As I said, we'll never know. But in summary, as I said many times, of course than van driver overreacted, but it was an overreaction to an act of vandalism by the 19 year old. If he had behaved civilly none of this would have happened. To lives ruined. Two people need charging. No sympathy for either party to be honest.
l am calm, but l am also a very busy person, and don`t have the time or the inclination to sit on here all day as obviously many people do.
Maybe it`s their only source of contact, or maybe they just enjoy constantly arguing, or agreeing, with people they`ve never even met, and are not likely too.

I do get annoyed, not upset, when people say things like "my lack of acknowledgement" which was incorrect, and if you had read ALL my comments you would have seen that l did acknowledge.! But at the end of the day the van driver was far, far more in the wrong, and only an unbalanced, unstable and aggressive person would react like that, and in my opinion, only people who have some of those tendencies inside themselves would agree that just because he instigated it that he deserved it, well he didn`t, not to get run over like like, it is attempted murder and is indefensible by the majority of sane people.
[quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Do calm down. Why wouldn't I say these things to your face? I have not been rude, insulting or argumentative. Surely we could hold a civil conversation? Or are you like the van diver ;-) perhaps this is some elaborate cover story! Anyway, one point you misunderstood. When I said what if the vehicle owner was someone more passive, I meant what if they weren't liable to overreact as the van driver did? If a timid old man had come out and asked why his car was damaged would he be in hospital now? As I said, we'll never know. But in summary, as I said many times, of course than van driver overreacted, but it was an overreaction to an act of vandalism by the 19 year old. If he had behaved civilly none of this would have happened. To lives ruined. Two people need charging. No sympathy for either party to be honest.[/p][/quote]l am calm, but l am also a very busy person, and don`t have the time or the inclination to sit on here all day as obviously many people do. Maybe it`s their only source of contact, or maybe they just enjoy constantly arguing, or agreeing, with people they`ve never even met, and are not likely too. I do get annoyed, not upset, when people say things like "my lack of acknowledgement" which was incorrect, and if you had read ALL my comments you would have seen that l did acknowledge.! But at the end of the day the van driver was far, far more in the wrong, and only an unbalanced, unstable and aggressive person would react like that, and in my opinion, only people who have some of those tendencies inside themselves would agree that just because he instigated it that he deserved it, well he didn`t, not to get run over like like, it is attempted murder and is indefensible by the majority of sane people. Almeda11
  • Score: -7

8:12am Fri 20 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

d_2da_ougle wrote:
do be frank and honest about this the van driver was in the worng so was the boy for hitting the van however we live in a world where we dont know what will happen if we take the **** out of someone elses property if i hit a van i would expect anything from the police to be called a minor slap, a knife too be plunged into me to being shot sorry but thats how people are these days, unfortunate but a life lesson for the boy is what this is you cant second judge a strangers reaction
Yes, that is what britain has become these days, a violent, aggressive and defensive nation. I`s all about self, me, me, me, binge drinking,( the highest in Europe) teenage pregnancies ( also the highest in Europe) and celebrities and gossip, although the uk has always been a gossipy nation.
l get away from here as often as possible, Germany, Portugal, or Thailand hwich is good for my osteoarthritis, and the people in all these countries are less stressed, less reactive, and aggressive and much calmer, britain went down the tubes a long time ago and it`s still getting worse.
[quote][p][bold]d_2da_ougle[/bold] wrote: do be frank and honest about this the van driver was in the worng so was the boy for hitting the van however we live in a world where we dont know what will happen if we take the **** out of someone elses property if i hit a van i would expect anything from the police to be called a minor slap, a knife too be plunged into me to being shot sorry but thats how people are these days, unfortunate but a life lesson for the boy is what this is you cant second judge a strangers reaction[/p][/quote]Yes, that is what britain has become these days, a violent, aggressive and defensive nation. I`s all about self, me, me, me, binge drinking,( the highest in Europe) teenage pregnancies ( also the highest in Europe) and celebrities and gossip, although the uk has always been a gossipy nation. l get away from here as often as possible, Germany, Portugal, or Thailand hwich is good for my osteoarthritis, and the people in all these countries are less stressed, less reactive, and aggressive and much calmer, britain went down the tubes a long time ago and it`s still getting worse. Almeda11
  • Score: -6

10:14am Fri 20 Jun 14

bb2015 says...

this man was a maniac and should be locked up - you can't go running people over for a minor offence - he should have called the police. For those who have sided with the maniac, you are all sick & lets hope nothing like this happens to someone you love, maybe you would change your opinion then. Put the driver in prison and throw away the key. I hope the lad makes a full recovery.
this man was a maniac and should be locked up - you can't go running people over for a minor offence - he should have called the police. For those who have sided with the maniac, you are all sick & lets hope nothing like this happens to someone you love, maybe you would change your opinion then. Put the driver in prison and throw away the key. I hope the lad makes a full recovery. bb2015
  • Score: -3

7:34pm Fri 20 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

bb2015 wrote:
this man was a maniac and should be locked up - you can't go running people over for a minor offence - he should have called the police. For those who have sided with the maniac, you are all sick & lets hope nothing like this happens to someone you love, maybe you would change your opinion then. Put the driver in prison and throw away the key. I hope the lad makes a full recovery.
bb2015 ---Ah, the voice of sanity, intelligence, common sense and reason, qualities lacking by too many in the uk.
l completely agree with ALL your comments, and they would certainly ALL change their opinions if it were a loved one, pity there are so many of that mentality on here, and do l give a stuff if l get voted down again, NEVER, not by dim---ts like that. Southend is certainly going downhill.
[quote][p][bold]bb2015[/bold] wrote: this man was a maniac and should be locked up - you can't go running people over for a minor offence - he should have called the police. For those who have sided with the maniac, you are all sick & lets hope nothing like this happens to someone you love, maybe you would change your opinion then. Put the driver in prison and throw away the key. I hope the lad makes a full recovery.[/p][/quote]bb2015 ---Ah, the voice of sanity, intelligence, common sense and reason, qualities lacking by too many in the uk. l completely agree with ALL your comments, and they would certainly ALL change their opinions if it were a loved one, pity there are so many of that mentality on here, and do l give a stuff if l get voted down again, NEVER, not by dim---ts like that. Southend is certainly going downhill. Almeda11
  • Score: -6

9:08pm Fri 20 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

Oh for goodness sake, what opinion would I change if I knew the person involved?

I said the van driver over reacted and needs punishing. Would I still think that? Yes. Of course. Goes without saying.

I said the 19 year old acted antisocially and started this chain of events. He deserves to be charged. Would I still believe that? Of course. I might not want him charged if he were my son, but I would know, deep down, that he deserved to be.

My only change in attitude, if that was my son, would be from a lack of sympathy to a mixture of worry (for their health) and disappointment (in their behaviour).

It is possible to realise that two people have behaved inappropriately. The fact that one has come off unfortunately worse does not mean the other is being sided with. The fact one was injured does not exonerate them either.

I am taking no sides.

I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I really don't.
Oh for goodness sake, what opinion would I change if I knew the person involved? I said the van driver over reacted and needs punishing. Would I still think that? Yes. Of course. Goes without saying. I said the 19 year old acted antisocially and started this chain of events. He deserves to be charged. Would I still believe that? Of course. I might not want him charged if he were my son, but I would know, deep down, that he deserved to be. My only change in attitude, if that was my son, would be from a lack of sympathy to a mixture of worry (for their health) and disappointment (in their behaviour). It is possible to realise that two people have behaved inappropriately. The fact that one has come off unfortunately worse does not mean the other is being sided with. The fact one was injured does not exonerate them either. I am taking no sides. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I really don't. BIRLIS
  • Score: 6

7:19pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

BIRLIS wrote:
Oh for goodness sake, what opinion would I change if I knew the person involved? I said the van driver over reacted and needs punishing. Would I still think that? Yes. Of course. Goes without saying. I said the 19 year old acted antisocially and started this chain of events. He deserves to be charged. Would I still believe that? Of course. I might not want him charged if he were my son, but I would know, deep down, that he deserved to be. My only change in attitude, if that was my son, would be from a lack of sympathy to a mixture of worry (for their health) and disappointment (in their behaviour). It is possible to realise that two people have behaved inappropriately. The fact that one has come off unfortunately worse does not mean the other is being sided with. The fact one was injured does not exonerate them either. I am taking no sides. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I really don't.
You are like a bull terrier, can`t let go. l`m sure you are the sort who ENJOYS arguing, with people you don`t know, just for the sake of it.

And YES, you DID say a lot, but ONLY about the boy, plus your reaction if it were your own son.

What about the maniac of a van driver? suspiciously silent on that are`nt you.

l don`t know what else l can say. The boy was wrong, but the van driver acted like a psychpath, agressive, sadistic, obviously immature and unstable.

Whatever, this boy did not justify the actions of the van driver.

Perhaps you should re read ALL my comments, or answer the poster above me who is also of the same opinion --- or are you just obsessed with MY name.

Have a nice weekend, preferably in the REAL, not virtual world.
[quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Oh for goodness sake, what opinion would I change if I knew the person involved? I said the van driver over reacted and needs punishing. Would I still think that? Yes. Of course. Goes without saying. I said the 19 year old acted antisocially and started this chain of events. He deserves to be charged. Would I still believe that? Of course. I might not want him charged if he were my son, but I would know, deep down, that he deserved to be. My only change in attitude, if that was my son, would be from a lack of sympathy to a mixture of worry (for their health) and disappointment (in their behaviour). It is possible to realise that two people have behaved inappropriately. The fact that one has come off unfortunately worse does not mean the other is being sided with. The fact one was injured does not exonerate them either. I am taking no sides. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I really don't.[/p][/quote]You are like a bull terrier, can`t let go. l`m sure you are the sort who ENJOYS arguing, with people you don`t know, just for the sake of it. And YES, you DID say a lot, but ONLY about the boy, plus your reaction if it were your own son. What about the maniac of a van driver? suspiciously silent on that are`nt you. l don`t know what else l can say. The boy was wrong, but the van driver acted like a psychpath, agressive, sadistic, obviously immature and unstable. Whatever, this boy did not justify the actions of the van driver. Perhaps you should re read ALL my comments, or answer the poster above me who is also of the same opinion --- or are you just obsessed with MY name. Have a nice weekend, preferably in the REAL, not virtual world. Almeda11
  • Score: -2

7:53pm Sat 21 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

Almeda11 wrote:
BIRLIS wrote: Oh for goodness sake, what opinion would I change if I knew the person involved? I said the van driver over reacted and needs punishing. Would I still think that? Yes. Of course. Goes without saying. I said the 19 year old acted antisocially and started this chain of events. He deserves to be charged. Would I still believe that? Of course. I might not want him charged if he were my son, but I would know, deep down, that he deserved to be. My only change in attitude, if that was my son, would be from a lack of sympathy to a mixture of worry (for their health) and disappointment (in their behaviour). It is possible to realise that two people have behaved inappropriately. The fact that one has come off unfortunately worse does not mean the other is being sided with. The fact one was injured does not exonerate them either. I am taking no sides. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I really don't.
You are like a bull terrier, can`t let go. l`m sure you are the sort who ENJOYS arguing, with people you don`t know, just for the sake of it. And YES, you DID say a lot, but ONLY about the boy, plus your reaction if it were your own son. What about the maniac of a van driver? suspiciously silent on that are`nt you. l don`t know what else l can say. The boy was wrong, but the van driver acted like a psychpath, agressive, sadistic, obviously immature and unstable. Whatever, this boy did not justify the actions of the van driver. Perhaps you should re read ALL my comments, or answer the poster above me who is also of the same opinion --- or are you just obsessed with MY name. Have a nice weekend, preferably in the REAL, not virtual world.
ps,
And l wonder what you would have said about the van driver, if that were YOUR son, lying seriously ill in hospital? l`m sure it would be a different story then!!
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: Oh for goodness sake, what opinion would I change if I knew the person involved? I said the van driver over reacted and needs punishing. Would I still think that? Yes. Of course. Goes without saying. I said the 19 year old acted antisocially and started this chain of events. He deserves to be charged. Would I still believe that? Of course. I might not want him charged if he were my son, but I would know, deep down, that he deserved to be. My only change in attitude, if that was my son, would be from a lack of sympathy to a mixture of worry (for their health) and disappointment (in their behaviour). It is possible to realise that two people have behaved inappropriately. The fact that one has come off unfortunately worse does not mean the other is being sided with. The fact one was injured does not exonerate them either. I am taking no sides. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, I really don't.[/p][/quote]You are like a bull terrier, can`t let go. l`m sure you are the sort who ENJOYS arguing, with people you don`t know, just for the sake of it. And YES, you DID say a lot, but ONLY about the boy, plus your reaction if it were your own son. What about the maniac of a van driver? suspiciously silent on that are`nt you. l don`t know what else l can say. The boy was wrong, but the van driver acted like a psychpath, agressive, sadistic, obviously immature and unstable. Whatever, this boy did not justify the actions of the van driver. Perhaps you should re read ALL my comments, or answer the poster above me who is also of the same opinion --- or are you just obsessed with MY name. Have a nice weekend, preferably in the REAL, not virtual world.[/p][/quote]ps, And l wonder what you would have said about the van driver, if that were YOUR son, lying seriously ill in hospital? l`m sure it would be a different story then!! Almeda11
  • Score: -4

8:14pm Sat 21 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

I would say he needs catching and dealing with by the courts, just as I have kept saying. I have never tried to justify his actions.

We clearly can't continue here without you keep shouting your point (the use of upper case), and I doubt we'll get anywhere if we haven't so far. Probably best leave it there. Neither of our opinions are particularly important.

Hopefully the guy in hospital will recover, the van driver will be caught and both parties will be processed as applicable by the courts.

Thanks for taking the time to try and explain your view.
I would say he needs catching and dealing with by the courts, just as I have kept saying. I have never tried to justify his actions. We clearly can't continue here without you keep shouting your point (the use of upper case), and I doubt we'll get anywhere if we haven't so far. Probably best leave it there. Neither of our opinions are particularly important. Hopefully the guy in hospital will recover, the van driver will be caught and both parties will be processed as applicable by the courts. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain your view. BIRLIS
  • Score: 6

12:41am Sun 22 Jun 14

SergioBorini says...

The guy who done it has been arrested and is now out on bail. So much for justice.
The guy who done it has been arrested and is now out on bail. So much for justice. SergioBorini
  • Score: 0

10:51am Sun 22 Jun 14

BIRLIS says...

Good news he has been caught. Seems the Police found him pretty quickly then.
Good news he has been caught. Seems the Police found him pretty quickly then. BIRLIS
  • Score: 5

2:14pm Sun 22 Jun 14

DannyButcher says...

Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.
'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?
You are obsessed with this.

And YOU STATED: " Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now "
So OBVIOUSLY l said we have different laws for adults and children. A completely relevant and sensible answer to your statement.

And l NEVER said that 19 was a child,, so why the EMPHASIS above, 19 IS an adult, strange, like you.
l have no inclination to keep going over this, particularly with you, you are getting on my nerves, l don`t know you, don`t want to, and what you think doesn`t interest me, plus l have a REAL life, much nice and interesting than on here.
If you aren't a troll and actually believe what you post, it's not worth discussing anything with you. Your reply to a pretty simple question is ridiculous.

You keep telling people they can't have a life due to their number of postings, yet have posted more than anyone.

You accuse me of being obsessed, when you are the one who seems to find more time than anyone, to sit here and reply multiple times to the same posts.

You clearly can't understand a cogent, genuine discussion without resorting to childish, shouting rants at people when you 'think' people are defending the van driver.

Truth be told, the vast majority of people agree that the van driver should be caught and punished, but you can't seem to understand that. People understand that the teen created this situation and acknowledge that without his instigation, we wouldn’t be discussing this here. But that does NOT equal standing up for the drivers actions.

Don't expect another reply, because frankly, I'm getting pretty bored with reading the same thing over and over and getting absurd, illogical replies.

Lets hope that the teen pulls through and both parties are prosecuted for the crimes that they have committed, as that really is all that matters.
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.[/p][/quote]Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.[/p][/quote]'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?[/p][/quote]You are obsessed with this. And YOU STATED: " Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now " So OBVIOUSLY l said we have different laws for adults and children. A completely relevant and sensible answer to your statement. And l NEVER said that 19 was a child,, so why the EMPHASIS above, 19 IS an adult, strange, like you. l have no inclination to keep going over this, particularly with you, you are getting on my nerves, l don`t know you, don`t want to, and what you think doesn`t interest me, plus l have a REAL life, much nice and interesting than on here.[/p][/quote]If you aren't a troll and actually believe what you post, it's not worth discussing anything with you. Your reply to a pretty simple question is ridiculous. You keep telling people they can't have a life due to their number of postings, yet have posted more than anyone. You accuse me of being obsessed, when you are the one who seems to find more time than anyone, to sit here and reply multiple times to the same posts. You clearly can't understand a cogent, genuine discussion without resorting to childish, shouting rants at people when you 'think' people are defending the van driver. Truth be told, the vast majority of people agree that the van driver should be caught and punished, but you can't seem to understand that. People understand that the teen created this situation and acknowledge that without his instigation, we wouldn’t be discussing this here. But that does NOT equal standing up for the drivers actions. Don't expect another reply, because frankly, I'm getting pretty bored with reading the same thing over and over and getting absurd, illogical replies. Lets hope that the teen pulls through and both parties are prosecuted for the crimes that they have committed, as that really is all that matters. DannyButcher
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

BIRLIS wrote:
I would say he needs catching and dealing with by the courts, just as I have kept saying. I have never tried to justify his actions. We clearly can't continue here without you keep shouting your point (the use of upper case), and I doubt we'll get anywhere if we haven't so far. Probably best leave it there. Neither of our opinions are particularly important. Hopefully the guy in hospital will recover, the van driver will be caught and both parties will be processed as applicable by the courts. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain your view.
Thank you for your reply, but a pity you didn`t answer my question about how you would feel about the van driver, or have to say about him if it were YOUR son !! That would have interested me, but sometimes no answer is as revealing as an answer !! so l have already formed my own opinionion on that!!

On " shouting" just because l use capitals;

the reason is because l am an independent thinker, and don`t subscribe to the commonly held view, brought in by who ? that capitals ARE shouting.

l use them only to EMPHASISE, or, if my post is very short, in a long line of posts, then for speed and convenience to find it, it`s no fun going through100`s of posts to find yours when they all look similar!

You`re right, there is no point going over and over,that`s one point we can agree on, l think all my comments have made it very clear how l feel, but l am shocked by the attitudes of some on here, l still think some of them have inside of them some of the aggressive tendencies displayed by the van driver, and in my honest opinion l don`t find people like that very intelligent.

l am a bit disappointed to wouldn`t commit yourself re my question, but it confirms in my mind what your probable answer would have been, so l am happy to leave it like that. Will be interesting " talking" to you next time on here!! With good wishes.
[quote][p][bold]BIRLIS[/bold] wrote: I would say he needs catching and dealing with by the courts, just as I have kept saying. I have never tried to justify his actions. We clearly can't continue here without you keep shouting your point (the use of upper case), and I doubt we'll get anywhere if we haven't so far. Probably best leave it there. Neither of our opinions are particularly important. Hopefully the guy in hospital will recover, the van driver will be caught and both parties will be processed as applicable by the courts. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain your view.[/p][/quote]Thank you for your reply, but a pity you didn`t answer my question about how you would feel about the van driver, or have to say about him if it were YOUR son !! That would have interested me, but sometimes no answer is as revealing as an answer !! so l have already formed my own opinionion on that!! On " shouting" just because l use capitals; the reason is because l am an independent thinker, and don`t subscribe to the commonly held view, brought in by who ? that capitals ARE shouting. l use them only to EMPHASISE, or, if my post is very short, in a long line of posts, then for speed and convenience to find it, it`s no fun going through100`s of posts to find yours when they all look similar! You`re right, there is no point going over and over,that`s one point we can agree on, l think all my comments have made it very clear how l feel, but l am shocked by the attitudes of some on here, l still think some of them have inside of them some of the aggressive tendencies displayed by the van driver, and in my honest opinion l don`t find people like that very intelligent. l am a bit disappointed to wouldn`t commit yourself re my question, but it confirms in my mind what your probable answer would have been, so l am happy to leave it like that. Will be interesting " talking" to you next time on here!! With good wishes. Almeda11
  • Score: 2

8:32pm Sun 22 Jun 14

Almeda11 says...

DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
DannyButcher wrote:
Parold wrote:
DannyButcher wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.
I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.
A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.
The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older!
So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.
Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.
'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?
You are obsessed with this. And YOU STATED: " Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now " So OBVIOUSLY l said we have different laws for adults and children. A completely relevant and sensible answer to your statement. And l NEVER said that 19 was a child,, so why the EMPHASIS above, 19 IS an adult, strange, like you. l have no inclination to keep going over this, particularly with you, you are getting on my nerves, l don`t know you, don`t want to, and what you think doesn`t interest me, plus l have a REAL life, much nice and interesting than on here.
If you aren't a troll and actually believe what you post, it's not worth discussing anything with you. Your reply to a pretty simple question is ridiculous. You keep telling people they can't have a life due to their number of postings, yet have posted more than anyone. You accuse me of being obsessed, when you are the one who seems to find more time than anyone, to sit here and reply multiple times to the same posts. You clearly can't understand a cogent, genuine discussion without resorting to childish, shouting rants at people when you 'think' people are defending the van driver. Truth be told, the vast majority of people agree that the van driver should be caught and punished, but you can't seem to understand that. People understand that the teen created this situation and acknowledge that without his instigation, we wouldn’t be discussing this here. But that does NOT equal standing up for the drivers actions. Don't expect another reply, because frankly, I'm getting pretty bored with reading the same thing over and over and getting absurd, illogical replies. Lets hope that the teen pulls through and both parties are prosecuted for the crimes that they have committed, as that really is all that matters.
l understand a lot, pity you can`t see that. And as for your absurd comment that
"the vast majority of people agree that the van driver should be caught and punished, but you can't seem to understand that"
is not entirely true, as there have been people who have admitted that they themselves would have run him over, have a good look at ALL the comments, they are there for anyone to see, quite despicable.
. "The bottom line is the boy instigated it, but the van driver then tried to kill him, simple fact, he was far, far more in the wrong than the teen, and l am very pleased to hear he has been caught. l`m sure he will be charged with attempted manslaughter or murder, so alls well that ends well.
[quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Parold[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DannyButcher[/bold] wrote: What really makes me laugh are the people who don't seem to understand cause and effect. Yes, a young man should not have been run over, but as he instigated it, many grown adults find it hard to be sympathetic. I do wonder how many of the 'outraged' here are juveniles who think that the damage to others property is completely irrelevant.[/p][/quote]I do understand cause and effect, but also believe that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye in this case, seems to be a toe nail for a head.[/p][/quote]A grown man attacks a strangers van. That stranger is an unknown quantity. The grown man made a choice and the van driver reacted extremely badly. But the grown man caused this, and the effect was getting run over by the van driver. Of course the van driver needs to be punished, but none of that changes what happened. Not attacking a strangers van however, would have totally avoided the damage the grown man suffered. People who do wrong and bring on their own downfall cannot expect everyone's sympathy, it is just the world we live in. I wonder how many people who have had their vehicle vandalised can relate to the van driver. This grown, anti-social man created a situation where now two lives are ruined. This is a lesson to some of the younger generation, that you respect other people, otherwise you just don't know what might happen.[/p][/quote]The van driver also had a choice, and he chose to try and kill someone. Self control is what was needed, not acting like a two year old having a tantrum. Both the van driver, and the 19 year old need to grow up, but particularly the van driver who was a lot older![/p][/quote]So what if the van driver who was a lot older? Both are adults who should equally respect the law? Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now? Were you there? Because you are assuming an awful lot here. For instance, it would be important to know how the teen reacted when approached by the van driver. Without knowing this and many other things, all we can do is surmise the chain of events.[/p][/quote]Obviously, as people get older they are SUPPOSED to become more understanding and more MATURE ! that is the whole point of GROWING UP AND GROWING OLDER, due to our life experiences, you sound to me to be still relatively young, 30`s maybe. lt`s pointless trying to imagine what really happened, as nobody here, l presume? was there at the time, so a pointless waste of time. Of course we have different laws for children and for adults, and that`s how it should be, a child`s mind is by nature immature, and children need protecting. Both parties SHOULD respect the law, obviously, and the young man shouldn`t have punched the van, but, as l have stated, over and over again is that the driver had a CHOICE, and he CHOSE to try and kill or maim someone, that is far, far worse than merely punching a van, which l doubt even left a dent, and l hope he is caught sooner rather than later, he is NOT a stable individual and completely lacking in SELF CONTROL.[/p][/quote]'Of course we have different laws for children and for adults,' Honestly? Do you have to keep stating irrelevancies? This case was of a 19 year old, who IS an adult. Did I ask you if actual children had to adhere to different laws?[/p][/quote]You are obsessed with this. And YOU STATED: " Do we have laws that 'just adults' don't have to adhere to now " So OBVIOUSLY l said we have different laws for adults and children. A completely relevant and sensible answer to your statement. And l NEVER said that 19 was a child,, so why the EMPHASIS above, 19 IS an adult, strange, like you. l have no inclination to keep going over this, particularly with you, you are getting on my nerves, l don`t know you, don`t want to, and what you think doesn`t interest me, plus l have a REAL life, much nice and interesting than on here.[/p][/quote]If you aren't a troll and actually believe what you post, it's not worth discussing anything with you. Your reply to a pretty simple question is ridiculous. You keep telling people they can't have a life due to their number of postings, yet have posted more than anyone. You accuse me of being obsessed, when you are the one who seems to find more time than anyone, to sit here and reply multiple times to the same posts. You clearly can't understand a cogent, genuine discussion without resorting to childish, shouting rants at people when you 'think' people are defending the van driver. Truth be told, the vast majority of people agree that the van driver should be caught and punished, but you can't seem to understand that. People understand that the teen created this situation and acknowledge that without his instigation, we wouldn’t be discussing this here. But that does NOT equal standing up for the drivers actions. Don't expect another reply, because frankly, I'm getting pretty bored with reading the same thing over and over and getting absurd, illogical replies. Lets hope that the teen pulls through and both parties are prosecuted for the crimes that they have committed, as that really is all that matters.[/p][/quote]l understand a lot, pity you can`t see that. And as for your absurd comment that "the vast majority of people agree that the van driver should be caught and punished, but you can't seem to understand that" is not entirely true, as there have been people who have admitted that they themselves would have run him over, have a good look at ALL the comments, they are there for anyone to see, quite despicable. . "The bottom line is the boy instigated it, but the van driver then tried to kill him, simple fact, he was far, far more in the wrong than the teen, and l am very pleased to hear he has been caught. l`m sure he will be charged with attempted manslaughter or murder, so alls well that ends well. Almeda11
  • Score: 2

2:54pm Tue 24 Jun 14

bb2015 says...

to all those sicko's who are siding with the van driver because the teen hit the van - the teen commited a minor offence - how many of us are guilty of minor offences?? speeding? eating/drinking at the wheel? buying conterfeit goods? using your phone whilst driving? parking illegally? throwing litter? graffiti? to name just a few…… none of us are perfect but we can't justify the fact that a maniac has run over a teenager for a MINOR offence. TAKE THE MAD MAN OFF THE ROAD.
to all those sicko's who are siding with the van driver because the teen hit the van - the teen commited a minor offence - how many of us are guilty of minor offences?? speeding? eating/drinking at the wheel? buying conterfeit goods? using your phone whilst driving? parking illegally? throwing litter? graffiti? to name just a few…… none of us are perfect but we can't justify the fact that a maniac has run over a teenager for a MINOR offence. TAKE THE MAD MAN OFF THE ROAD. bb2015
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree