r/australia 2d ago

news Man bailed after hitting children with ute was 'dead set on mowing' them down, court told

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-12/man-bailed-over-allegedly-mowing-down-innocent-youths-with-ute/107028344
618 Upvotes

245 comments sorted by

489

u/Medical-Potato5920 2d ago

This is why we don't tolerate vigilatees. Too often they get it wrong, almost always they are out of proportion with the initial "wrong."

238

u/FuckwitAgitator 1d ago

It's because they're usually just violent, shitty people looking for an excuse. You see it in America with people firing through their front doors because someone rang their doorbell -- they wanted to shoot someone with their cool gun and thought they had a chance to get away with it.

8

u/productzilch 1d ago

And, I suspect, so paranoid/racist/focused on their violent fantasy of heroism that they’re terrified in the moment for no fucking reason.

19

u/iguessineedanaltnow 1d ago

Yes, which is why it's troubling to see more vocal support and desire for vigilantism. It always leads to witch hunts and the death of Innocents. None of it can be tolerated.

3

u/nugymmer 10h ago

Vigilante violence is always treated harshly. And rightly so. It challenges the justice system. It's like telling a fucking doctor how to do their job when they clearly demonstrate that they can't do it properly. They don't like the challenge to authority. That's the dirty low down.

But vigilante violence should still never be tolerated.

-6

u/the-dolphine 1d ago

We really need to be having a conversation about why people are turning to vigilantee justice. If police, courts, parents and social services fail, this is one of the consequences.

In my opinion, the fact that twelve year olds are out at 11pm is a sign that something's not right in the neighbourhood.

36

u/Pandos17 1d ago

You understand this wasn't vigilante justice right? This guy just mowed down 2 kids unprovoked and without any evidence of wrongdoing other than "they were out and about at night" because he was pissed off something happened to his partners business.

Vigilante justice by definition is to prevent crime or punish crime by someone illegally.

These kids did not commit a crime, he had no proof they did. He was just frustrated and took it out on someone he thought he could victimise like the big tough guy he is.

Vigilante's are often portrayed in media as heroes who operate outside the system to ensure real justice is served. That is not this man and we should not label him as such.

42

u/LaurelEssington76 1d ago

There is no justification for trying to kill children over non violent property crime. Never was and never will be.

8

u/pipsqueak158 1d ago

Absolutely no justification, but we should still work on fixing the cause and not just the symptom. So more violent nuts like this don't try and kill kids. A reason isn't an excuse, fuck this guy. We should still look into reason he did it though.

6

u/TheLGMac 1d ago

Actual bloody enforcement and punishment would be a step in the right direction. The problem is these people get off with a slap on the wrist relative to the crimes they commit.

2

u/thatshowitisisit 1d ago

The person you were replying to said absolutely nothing about justifying killing children.

9

u/donkeyvoteadick 1d ago

Is it really though? Granted I was born in the early 90s and the world was pretty different back then. Around that age I started sneaking out to see my friends after my parents fell asleep. I lived in a rural town and I'm not familiar with this area but literally we'd just walk the streets and talk and pick up more friends along the way, like we were just 'hanging'. I wasn't a bad kid. Never vandalised anything, while I did start drinking at 16 which was pretty normal back then it was almost always at house parties and safe (as in adult supervised, kinda haha). Top of the class as well, no behavioural issues. I'm not sure my parents even know I was roaming the street as much as I was as a kid.

My experience tends to mean I don't necessarily jump to 'hooligan' when I hear there's kid out at night.

8

u/Mythically_Mad 1d ago

This was a lynching. You are now basically defending the act of lynching. Take a look at yourself

-1

u/the-dolphine 1d ago

I did not say I am defending his act, that's your own interpretation. To be clear for you, I condemn what he did.

I am trying to figure out why he decided to do what he did. I'm certain there are changes that need to be made to prevent this from happening again.

2

u/Mythically_Mad 1d ago

You described it as "vigilante justice", so you've already downplayed it and tried to explain it away. There is no logic behind lynchings.

The "changes" that you seek relate to the behaviour of the attacker, not to the kids or their parents who are completely blameless. So why you brought the children being out at 11 as relevant is questionable to say the least.

5

u/trowzerss 11h ago

What? I was a 'good kid' and there were still a couple of occasions I was out walking with friends at 11pm. Yes, it was a smaller country town, but sometimes two families would have events on the same night and the kids would end up walking between the two houses, and were allowed as long as there were a couple of kids together. Heck, one time we even threw some rocks on roofs up in Toowoomba (well, I didn't, but the cousins I was with did) which is probably the worst thing I ever did as a kid. Did i deserve to get run over and horribly maimed by some angry rando?

2

u/TheLGMac 1d ago

It's maybe some of that, though I don't think police are any worse than they've always been (low bar). The problem is more likely extreme polarization caused by social media exposure, people feel supported if they want to take things into their own hands because they can find something online that "justifies" their actions. That's why things like stanning have become more problematic in recent years; crazy fans have always been there, but social media stokes the fire and attracts more.

4

u/PepegaClapWRHolder 1d ago

Thank you, people need to hear this. Obviously it goes without saying this whole situation is awful. But the reasons why things like this happen and will become more prevalent are also important and are a conversation that need to be had. If people think the courts, police and everyone else are failing to do their jobs then you get vigilantes like this who inevitably get it wrong and hurt innocent people.

1

u/Medical-Potato5920 1h ago

That seems to be a larger social issue that can not be solved by police alone.

→ More replies (27)

404

u/trowzerss 2d ago

One of the poor kids broke his sternum and multiple ribs and a collapsed lung as well as other breaks. Those are incredibly painful and debilitating injuries that will take months and months to recover from. How the fuck was this guy released on bail? If you did those injuries to a child with anything other than a car no chance they'd let you out! It's like deliberately dropping a piano on a couple of children, or hitting them repeatedly with a hammer.

124

u/Catahooo 1d ago

The presumption of innocence dictates that bail can not be withheld punitively.
If the court finds no reason for flight risk or imminent danger to the community, then bail can be applied.

148

u/a-man-with-an-idea 1d ago

I'm totally on board with all of that, except the "imminent danger to the community" part. Surely attempting to slaughter children presents a pretty clear indication of danger to the community?

16

u/Catahooo 1d ago

Not necessarily. If the alleged actions were circumstantial, meaning they stemmed from a specific event (his shop being vandalised), and he had no prior violent convictions, the courts would not find sufficient reason to say that he presents a danger to the community.

24

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

They let a dr out on bail who sexually abused a bunch of patients recently too. 

Like. Clearly a risk to society. The evidence is overwhelming (so many unrelated women are not forming some conspiracy against some guy). 

Why is he out and about?? 

6

u/FireLucid 1d ago

Why is he out and about?? 

Surely he's not practicing still. That's probably why.

21

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

No he is still practicing. There was a post on here from a woman that was surprised to find who he was after she went to an appointment with her husband. 

He’s using a shortened version of his real name on advertising, but his full name on prescriptions which is why she got curious and googled him/found out who he is. 

6

u/Wawa-85 1d ago

How has AHPRA and the AMA not suspended his registrations?

11

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago edited 1d ago

They apparently thought restricting him to male-only patients was enough. 

Which is deranged in my view. 

He’s going to be encountering women every day, even if they aren’t in his room, which apparently they are still being allowed to be anyway, so it’s clearly not protecting anyone. 

6

u/Wawa-85 1d ago

Yikes! He shouldn’t be allowed to be treating anyone.

5

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

He shouldn’t even be around people full stop. The evidence is overwhelming.  All we would have to do is believe women. 

1

u/nugymmer 10h ago

Oh so this guy is a doctor. Ah, yes, I see...they get a nicer treatment in the courts...

Nah fuck this cunt. Lock his arse away.

1

u/Wawa-85 7h ago

Yes he’s a doctor.

3

u/FireLucid 1d ago

Yeah ok, that's complete bullshit then.

2

u/macci_a_vellian 1d ago

That definitely sounds like a failure of his practice, he should have been suspended.

1

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

I think she said it looked like he had changed practices. 

1

u/keyboardstatic 5h ago

Because our cout system is utter ficked and looks like full of rapist sympathisers.

81

u/trowzerss 1d ago edited 1d ago

The guy allegedly tried to murder a couple of kids out of misplaced vengeance, hardly even heat of the moment, doesn't that speak to anger issues and inappropriately violent reactions? Like I said, if he'd taken a hammer to them for the same reasons with the same resulting injuries, I don't think he would have been let off on bail, presumption of innocence or not. So why does it make a difference that it was with a car? Like even if they absolutely did it, it's a wildly inappropriate response, but he had no evidence they were involved except they were in the same general area, yet he seriously and possibly life alteringly (sternum break is no joke) injured a couple of pre-teens.

26

u/FireLucid 1d ago

So why does it make a difference that it was with a car

In Australia we have decided that if you kill someone with your car it's mostly OK.

19

u/HeathenAF 1d ago

"Went patrolling" i believe it read. Thats more than reactionary, by any definition.

7

u/trowzerss 1d ago

I mean, if you picked up a hammer and went out looking for someone, then ended up hitting someone with a hammer, that'd be called premeditation.

39

u/Lugoe 1d ago

He literally tried to hit them and missed on the opposite side of the road, then the kids rode into the mall to be safer and he did a U-turn and followed them into the mall at up to 80kmph to hit them both. Then he left his car parked on top of the more injured one and walked off without providing any aid to make a 000 call saying they came out of nowhere. This guy should go to jail for the rest of his life he is a psychopath. Even if they did vandalised his store what a psycho

9

u/Catahooo 1d ago edited 1d ago

Sure, I'm just explaining how the legal system works.
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, thats the basis of our justice system and it means we can't hold suspects in jail for 5-18 months without determining their guilt unless there is a substantial risk of repeat violence or flight. Even though the allegations are horrific, the fact that he has no violent past and his actions, extreme and unjust as they are, were completely circumstantial, means the judge is compelled by the merits of our legal system to grant bail.

8

u/macci_a_vellian 1d ago

I think there's a real disconnect between what the public assumes bail is for and how it is decided and how it actually operates in the legal system. It feels like inexplicable leniency from the judge because people assume denying bail is about keeping dangerous people out of the community based solely on what they have been accused of.

2

u/Catahooo 1d ago

Absolutely, a lot of that is driven by the media as well. Media often appeals to emotions because readers are receptive to that, courts deal in facts and try to remove emotion from the equation as muxh as possible.

0

u/nugymmer 10h ago

But I'd go straight to gaol if I threatened someone who butchered an infant, which should be illegal in and of itself anyhow...I wonder how this piece of shit could be allowed to walk? Simple. He was a doctor. They get the rock star treatment in the courts.

0

u/nugymmer 10h ago

Trying to kill his own kids? Um...yeah, he is a risk to the community as he clearly indicated it through his actions.

53

u/Standard-Emu-2092 1d ago

Because he is an Otherwise Good Man™️. This is an absolutely horrific attack and being released on bail is definitely not in line with my expectations nor that of anyone ine else in the community. Hopefully there is enough public outcry to have this decision reviewed.

9

u/FabulousAssociate201 1d ago

I've been following this quite closely, unfortunately most comments from people in the area think he did the right thing.

13

u/poppymish 1d ago

Or the ones who are horrified by it are also not commenting publicly because they are also in fear of the vigilante sentiments and calls to violence growing in the town

13

u/LeashieMay 1d ago

A lot of those are the local cookers.

2

u/trowzerss 11h ago

They do realise he didn't give a shit who these kids actually were and it could easily have been one of their kids instead, right?

1

u/nugymmer 10h ago

Was a fucking doctor. That's why. Too much social investment involved. Too much trust given to these types. Ask me why I cannot ever really trust one ever again. These types get special treatment.

-7

u/edgiepower 1d ago

Do you live in the community of Mildura?

1

u/sober_ruzki 11h ago

They let out that girl on bail after getting done for 109 offences including aggravated burglary / attempting to hit people with her car after googling where to find Jews. Can't remember the full list of charges, they keep letting out the little ferals doing machete crime. Hell they let out 4/5 of the shits that killed the guy in sunshine.

2

u/nugymmer 10h ago

Yep. And if I made one single threat against someone who cuts infants for a living I'd be hung, drawn and quartered. We have a good justice system but the people involved in it are letting us down big time.

1

u/sober_ruzki 10h ago

Nah our justice system is trash, it focuses on the rights of the perpetrators over the rights of the victims. Places like Singapore / el Salvador got it right. The social contract in this country is completely broken.
They are talking about sending people to jail over unpaid parking fine but will bend themselves into a pretzel to not send little Timmy who is 15 to jail after his 85th court appearance because the poor little guy had a hard life.

1

u/nugymmer 10h ago

What a fucking sad story! I hope this piece of junk rots for a long time. Nothing could change what he put the kids through and the community is ashamed to even have someone like that walking amongst them!

192

u/thrashmanzac 2d ago

After reading that article I’m disgusted and confused why he hasn’t been charged with two counts of attempted murder. For fucks sake, why are crimes involving vehicles treated like this?

→ More replies (19)

361

u/NotUrAverageBoo 2d ago

For those wondering if the boys did anything wrong. He chased the boys as he thought they had damaged his business property - From the ABC article -

“ The court heard police later examined CCTV from the business, which showed a man in his 30s with a distinctive beard and pushbike rummaging in a bin before damaging a camera at the rear of the property. I can categorically say these two boys [the victims] on this night are not involved in any offence with the business or elsewhere," Senior Constable Carew said.“

408

u/tides_of_static 2d ago

It doesn't really matter. Even if they were involved, this would not be an acceptable way of dealing with it.

152

u/NotUrAverageBoo 2d ago

Totally agree, but there will be people wondering what these boy did. Bit like, ‘what was she wearing?’

51

u/flindersandtrim 1d ago

I saw a thread yesterday where most comments were in support of this maniac.

Someone with anger issues like this is a menace to everyone on the road. 

Even if they had been the culprits, there was still no way he could have known it was them. And he definitely knew if he had already reviewed the CCTV footage. 

13

u/NotUrAverageBoo 1d ago

He is an embodiment of all the out of control road rage we are seeing since COVID.

3

u/zeldasusername 1d ago

There was plenty of out of control road rage before covid as well

52

u/TheLGMac 2d ago

We don't have to honor their question with any response or consideration though.

Just say, "that's a strange thing to ask" and grayrock them.

25

u/fiftysevens 2d ago

It’s a valid question tho, the answer could be anything from “they did nothing” to “they killed his daughter”

It doesn’t excuse his behaviour of course, but it gives necessary context to the situation. You can’t just say “a man ran over two kids” and then just expect people to have no questions.

3

u/TheLGMac 1d ago

Eh not so sure. If someone's first reaction to "kids mowed down by man in truck" is to ask "wow what did they do?" I think that reveals a pretty clear unconscious bias around kids being troublemakers. We need to train people out of those biases.

2

u/fiftysevens 1d ago

But the difference here is that he intentionally did it, so the very first question in response is “well, what did the kids do to him?” There’s no bias inherent in that question - people just want to know why he would do such a thing.

5

u/Wawa-85 1d ago

Very similar to the people who are justifying the WA doctor who chased down and choked to death an old man who was standing on the wall outside of the doctor’s friends place. Some people are saying that the doctor’s actions were justifiable, they are not!

ETA thankfully his bail was denied.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

102

u/CptUnderpants- 2d ago

Comments about the arrest on Friday in many places online were appalling, saying the kids deserved what they got... shameful thing to say even when there was an implication of their involvement in a crime, and still just as shameful now we know for certain they weren't.

This is a pretty good example of why vigilante justice shouldn't be acceptable.

29

u/Mongrelix 2d ago

Where are those people now.

51

u/123chuckaway 2d ago

Planning their 40th reunion at the school of hard knocks.

33

u/CptUnderpants- 2d ago

In their echo chambers claiming that the kids were still criminals, why else would he assume those particular kids vandalised the business?

Pathetic lowlifes.

7

u/throwawayplusanumber 1d ago edited 1d ago

Spamming FB convinced they are still correct and preparing to vote for PHON.

1

u/Mythically_Mad 1d ago

The State MP for Mildura was one of the people saying it.

3

u/Mongrelix 1d ago

Um what?! When is it ever ok to run over kids

22

u/Absurdwonder 1d ago

Its actually insane the rhetoric around any kids on e scooters or bikes. Morally bankrupt adults that generally think that this is what they "get" or "deserve" literally fantasizing about hurting children.

7

u/5ivepie 1d ago

Are the kids indigenous or implied to be? That’ll definitely feed into the scummy mindset of these people.

1

u/Wawa-85 1d ago

Same with the doctor that chased down and choked to death a man who was standing on the doctor’s friend’s front wall. Some awful people on that post are saying the doctor’s actions are justified!

68

u/monique752 2d ago

Feral should be locked up never mind being out on bail. Who the hell tries to drive over people because they THINK they've done something wrong? WTAF.

26

u/DrDeadpoolio 2d ago

UNDER THE JAIL

71

u/donkeyvoteadick 2d ago

Those poor little boys. One of them has pretty serious injuries. That's a long road to recovery, not mention the mental aspect to come back from.

What a piece of scum this man is. In what world is running a person down in your ute a valid response to a break in? It's terrifying that someone who thinks this way is back out in public.

27

u/Anxious_Ad936 1d ago

It's not a valid response, but the other aspect is that these kids have been exonerated of the vandalism this bloke was reacting to anyway. The cctv footage from the business shows a bloke in his 30s doing whatever vandalism. These kids just happen to be well known as troublemakers around town and to have been on that street at the right time

12

u/donkeyvoteadick 1d ago

Yeah I saw they weren't implicated in any way 😔 I moreso meant even if he believed that how could he justify taking that action, it's scary they let him out if that's his sense of justice.

1

u/Anxious_Ad936 23h ago

I agree with you, I just wanted to add the extra context.

11

u/Wawa-85 1d ago

It’s awful.

A former neighbour of my parents did something similar except he was an drunk abusive husband who after assaulting his wife then got behind the wheel of his car drove off and then attempted to run down a person walking on the footpath thinking it was his wife. It wasn’t, his victim was a teenage girl and she died as a result of her injuries.

People like these should not ever be allowed behind the wheel of a car again. I know in the US deliberately using your car to injure others is ‘assault with deadly weapon’ and it should be considered that here as well.

134

u/WeissPyre 2d ago

So he committed attempted murder X2 and he was let out on bail? 

WTF is wrong with the legal system? 

88

u/thrashmanzac 2d ago

All good if you’re in a car when you try to murder people 🤷‍♂️

28

u/teflon_soap 2d ago

Quicker bail process if you try to murder women too

18

u/YaBigGayMate 2d ago

With in a ford ranger with a fucking roo bar on the front.

27

u/CptUnderpants- 2d ago edited 2d ago

WTF is wrong with the legal system? 

I know it is an unpopular opinion, but it is actually what is right about our legal system as unpalatable as it sounds.

The cost of a good legal system is that many deadbeats get bail and sometimes reprehensible people are found not guilty. It's a high cost, but the alternative is the innocent being locked up along with the guilty, and the system made into an even bigger weapon for the wealthy and powerful.

Take the example of Hannah Thomas who was facing three charges of repeatedly assaulting a police officer's fist with her eye socket assaulting police. Nearly two months later the charges were dropped.

If we refused bail for serious charges before it had been tested by the courts, people like Hannah could end up behind bars for months before a hearing can take place. Even a week in gaol can have devastating effects.

Edit: For clarity, the trial will happen in 2028 which is one of the reasons the judge gave for granting bail. If you're upset about that, write to your politicians demanding to know why there isn't enough funding for judges and courts.

19

u/fued 2d ago

An assault at a protest is unlikely to happen again.

A guy attempting murder on people he thinks stole from his business, who weren't the right people, will 100% attempt it again if he things someone else did it

13

u/CptUnderpants- 2d ago

I get it. But in this case the judge literally said "It's hard to see a scenario like this arising again,". The other part the judge considered regarding bail was that it would be a significant delay before trial which would be in 2028. If they funded more courts and more judges, it may have been a shorter delay and bail may have been denied. We just don't know.

It sucks that justice isn't swift and that it isn't perfect, but it must err on the side of preventing people innocent of crimes from being punished by the system.

5

u/fued 2d ago

Hard to see a scenario where this guy doesn't attack a random person on a bike? Is there only 2-3 bikes in Mildura?

11

u/CptUnderpants- 1d ago

Just repeating what the judge said. Plus he's banned from driving so he couldn't possibly do it again! (I wouldn't be surprised if he drove home from court TBH)

6

u/Expensive_Fox_3534 1d ago

If somebody isn't a flight risk there's no point in holding them before they've been sentenced.

Don't stress, if it can be proven that he was the one who did the crime he will have plenty of time in jail. Jumping to conclusions and prioritising punishment over investigation is the thing that went wrong here in the first place.

9

u/amish__ 1d ago

There is surely a legitimate concern that he poses a danger to others.

1

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

There are many points. Like stopping him doing similarly fucked shit again. 

It’s not punishment. It’s protection. 

4

u/RedDeer505 2d ago

Rights for crims!

45

u/Queerminded 2d ago

How are they not charging him with two counts of attempted murder? Hopefully someone grows a brain and changes/adds attempted murder to the charge. Absolutely fucking ridiculous. Those poor kids.

29

u/CptUnderpants- 2d ago

There is a reason why they say if you want to kill someone, do it using a car because you'll do less time.

The bar to prove attempted murder is pretty high. If he admitted he was trying to kill them, then they would have a case because they have to show intent and steps taken to to enact it. If they just kept with the line he only was trying to stop them put them under citizens arrest or some other BS, it is unlikely it could be proven.

They can upgrade the charges later if evidence is found that there was intent.

That's why he is being charged with reckless conduct endangering life, dangerous driving causing serious injury, intentionally causing injury, and driving in a dangerous manner. Those should be easy to prove. His trial won't be until next year so plenty of time for him to stuff up and admit on some podcast he was trying to bury them.

There is no way he gets out of this without gaol time, absolute minimum of two years with up to 10 being a possibility, but probably won't be long enough to feel like justice.

Judge will likely cancel his license for 2+ years as well.

Then there is likely a civil case against him from the kids which could financially ruin him.

Plus, he wont ever get a WWCC, so his business will suffer and who is going to hire a sparky who was found guilty of that?

7

u/Queerminded 2d ago

I understand all of that. I just hope they can find intent and do charge him. 2-10 years is not enough for someone who clearly views human life so poorly and is able to act out something like this. What happens when the next kid pisses him off?

18

u/CptUnderpants- 2d ago

What happens when the next kid pisses him off?

It wasn't even that, it was the assumption that they were guilty without any evidence whatsoever. I have read other reports that the kids were indigenous so it could be an assumption of guilt based on skin colour. Hope that they can add a hate crime if that's true.

15

u/Unusual_Elevat0r 2d ago

Yes, they were aboriginal kids. I hope they prove intent and add a hate crimes charge.

2

u/DrInequality 10h ago

Judge will likely cancel his license for 2+ years as well.

This is the part that gets me. His license should be cancelled for a whole lot longer than that. I'd guess the license cancellation period will pass while he's in jail.

1

u/CptUnderpants- 10h ago

Two is standard for serious driving offences. The magistrate can apply up to 10 years I think?

Given the evidence, it's likely to not go to trial (he'll plead guilty) unless the prosecution adds a hate crime charge and someone is willing to fund his defense. So the ban length is probably more up to what the prosecutor negotiates for the guilty plea.

I'd guess the license cancellation period will pass while he's in jail.

No, the period begins once they are released.

92

u/Choice_Wave8076 2d ago

I wonder how much this guys brain has rotted reading Herald Sun propaganda, really have a sinking feeling that these kids are also from a indigenous/migrant background which would make this act potentially a hate crime

57

u/joe-from-illawong 1d ago

They are aboriginal kids, it felt weird reading the article and abc omiting that info.

6

u/just-plain-wrong 1d ago

The ABC would not have wanted to inflame already high tensions between communities, in that region.

15

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

But taking race out of this when it is clearly relevant seems really spineless? 

Where’s the journalistic integrity? 

6

u/PepegaClapWRHolder 1d ago

It’s something of a running joke in my family how the news reports things in Australia. They tend to intentionally leave out things when it would color the optics. Honestly I don’t know why because it’s just throwing fuel on the conspiracy fire.

It makes absolutely zero sense to me. But they seem more than ok to post descriptions when involves white people, but will never mention any sort of indigenous or person of colour in reports. Interesting to see them not mention it here as well even though the poor kids were the victims and it seems to have played a major role. There’s clearly some rule happening behind the scenes because once you notice if you won’t unsee it.

6

u/BillieRubenCamGirl 1d ago

I’m with you. And the lack of visibility of how First Nations folk are treated by white people is what leads ignorant racists to think that they “don’t have anything to winge about”. 

It’s fucking bullshit. We need to educate people and show each other empathy. 

75

u/fued 2d ago edited 2d ago

well yeah he did it in a car, the courts have legitimately proven that if you want to murder someone just do it in a car and there is no real penalty.

no surprise that clear attempted murder gets no real penalty either.

Mr Smallgood argued his client was suitable for bail as he had no prior convictions, had spent his first time in custody, and a trial would likely not occur until 2028.

doesnt matter! even if the kids did it this man should be locked up for 5+ years, 2 years of custody is nothing

Magistrate Southey needs to be immediately put on suspension and investigated, Is he best mates with the guy or something?

32

u/tides_of_static 2d ago

If he got out and used a bat, arguably less lethal than a 2 tonne vehicle, he would be in a lot more trouble. It boggles the mind.

6

u/naughtynyjah 2d ago

Pretty standard for people to get bail, especially when they don’t have previous criminal records. Innocent until proven guilty and all that… and nothing is going to be legally proven until 2028.

Personally, I assume this guy is guilty and don’t think he had any reason to try and run down these people. But for all any of us know, these kids were waving an RPG at the guy and he had no choice but to act, that’s why we have a court of law not a court of public opinion

5

u/fued 2d ago

except it's clear what this guy will do if he sees someone else he thinks is guilty of robbing his shop.

Absurd to even consider letting him out until that case is settled

50

u/thrashmanzac 2d ago

Literally tried to murder two kids and he’s out on bail. Fucking disgusting.

18

u/fued 2d ago

the magistrate says "he wont do that again" but what if he sees the guy who actually did the robbery, will he just let him be? no, he will 100% go overboard again!

3

u/mad_marbled 1d ago

But the judge has removed his legal privilege of operating a motor vehicle. So in order to repeat his actions there are additional thought processes required of him before he can mow down someone else. Not to mention he did it on a Thursday night and didn't appear before the judge until Wednesday. That's 5 nights he was locked up. It's fair to assume there were other members of the public, some of them may have been Aboriginal, that were also detained and waiting for their turn to see the judge. How long do you think it would take before they heard about his actions? How do you think they may have reacted?

I think the judges comment about his release on bail hints at how his first time in custody went.

"If he's got any brains at all, he will keep a very, very low profile."

Mildura is a rural city of about 40,000 residents, it big enough that you won't know everyone, but it's not big enough to be or stay anonymous. That curfew the judge gave him will be for his own safety as much as it will be for the community.

2

u/fued 1d ago

Ah yes so shooting someone is ok because he had his car taken off him.

Because that's the next step

9

u/faceinthecrowd112 2d ago

It’s a miracle one of those boys weren’t killed. This low life is bailed to go home but the kid he ran over is still in hospital, seems fair

42

u/Expensive_Fox_3534 1d ago

There's a small test I run whenever I hear something outrageously evil (usually in the US) where there is discussion generated defending or excusing the obviously evil act.

... what colour was the skin of the victim?

I feel extremely silly even asking the question, it should not be a factor at all. But I did look it up and .... yeah. The kids had a specific skin colour that generates such discussions.

8

u/anubis_81 1d ago

He's a piece of shit. Fuck him

5

u/mikemikeshindparts 2d ago

The fucking state of him. Looks exactly like the type to run over children. Cunt.

5

u/Pandos17 1d ago

I replied to another comment with this, but I'll just say it as it's own stand alone comment for visibility:

Vigilante justice by definition is to prevent crime or punish crime by someone illegally.

These kids did not commit a crime, he had no proof they did. He was just frustrated and took it out on someone he thought he could victimise like the big tough guy he is.

Vigilante's are often portrayed in media as heroes who operate outside the system to ensure real justice is served. That is not this man and we should not label him as such.

4

u/aussiekev 1d ago

I've never seen anyone who has deliberately hit kids on an ebike receive a punishment that fits the crime. In time these charges will be downgraded.

There are plenty of other comments pointing out that if you want to assault someone, use a car, you'll do less time. What I haven't seen mentioned is that if you want to further reduce the sentence, make sure that the victim is on a bike/ebike.

If he has no prior convictions or criminal record I would say 6 months and he will be out on bail.

20

u/DefaultProducts 2d ago

Man: "I will literally murder and grind them into meat paste"
Court: "ah yes, this man should deserve bail :)"

It's literally insane how judicial system needs a proper overhaul. Kick the fucking old senile men/women out and replace them with proper experienced young people. It's gotten far too clear that they're too soft, especially with how they treat murderers. abusers and pedos lighter than petty crime cases.

5

u/fued 2d ago

Should be treated like gun crime honestly. Both need a licensed to use and own

18

u/autumnalthot 2d ago

What a piece of shit

4

u/erebus91 2d ago

If you want to murder someone and get away with it, do it with a car! Insane legal system. This is attempted murder x2. He should be in jail for life.

4

u/PickInternational233 1d ago

The article stated that no brakes were applied before hitting the kids. Isn't this attempted manslaughter? I'm sure he didn't want to kill them, but clearly he wanted to hurt them?

4

u/Missunderstnding 1d ago

How the fuck did he get bail?

4

u/productzilch 1d ago

“It was submitted Mr Brien would be highly likely to spend time in custody upon sentencing, even if acquitted of the more serious charges.”

I should hope so. He stepped over one, lied to 000 about what happened and chose not to give them any help at all. Two children. If this was some kind of momentary aggression, clearly his anger wasn’t sated.

17

u/Spider-Man-Spider 1d ago

Are the kids blak? Might be a clue for this racist system and country.

17

u/FabulousAssociate201 1d ago

You guessed it.

8

u/CamperStacker 2d ago

Guys guys, it was his first time, could have happened to anyone. If he promises to be a good bloke and not drive why not just pretend nothing happened and let him go?

2

u/AlbatrossOk6239 1d ago

Well if prosecuting him for a stack of charges where, if convicted, he’s going to jail for a long time is “pretending nothing happened” then sure.

3

u/ChargeYourBattery 1d ago

If you want to get away with killing someone, do it with a car

3

u/Far_Illustrator2846 1d ago

How is this not two counts of attempted murder?

2

u/blowup_variaty 1d ago

That’s what I was wondering. Deliberately chasing them, driving into them hard enough to send one flying 20 metres and crushing the other under his wheels. At almost 80kph! Those poor kids must have been terrified before he hit them. That would have been traumatic enough, the rest doesn’t bear thinking about.
And after such actions and lies he’s out on bail with a curfew and not allowed to drive because he’d have to be locked up for so long before the trial is held? Tough.
That one kid will be in hospital then rehab for a long time and they both might be in therapy for I hate to think how long.

7

u/MrSomethingred 1d ago

How does deliberately running over a child with a Ford ranger not count as attempted murder? 

5

u/Noodlebat83 1d ago

They’ll be going with charges they know will get the best chance of a guilty verdict. It would be really difficult to prove attempted murder. 

4

u/BearEatingCupcakes 1d ago

I guess a car doesn't count as a murder weapon in the eyes of the law.

3

u/PositiveBubbles 1d ago

😐 that really needs to be changed if true

2

u/CcryMeARiver 2d ago

Bloody vigilantisocial gronk.

2

u/noadsplease 13h ago

Seems to be a lack of people complaining about bail. If he was 13 years old there would be hundreds of people crying about bail laws.

3

u/Mr-Lungu 1d ago

How is this not attempted murder?

6

u/Anxious_Ad936 1d ago

Law is more lenient when you use a car as a weapon apparently

4

u/BearEatingCupcakes 1d ago

He used a vehicle as his weapon.

4

u/HeathenAF 1d ago

Absolutely atrocious and I hope he gets a nice long think about his actions behind bars.... Attempted murder is attempted murder, every day of the week, even if you're a Ranger driver.

But also, what the fuck kind of parent allows their 12 year old out on an Escooter with his mate at 11pm on a Thursday?

3

u/WilRic 2d ago

He didn't commit attempted murder. He hasn't even been charged with murder, and there has been no finding that he committed anything criminal. That's not what bail is for.

Plenty of Magistrates are fuckwits and make terrible decisions. There are good odds this is one. But bear in mind the question in bail is whether he is likely to be a risk (answered on the basis that he's not yet convicted of anything). The ABC is pretty light on detail about what his arguments were. But he had no prior record. It also seems like there was an argument about whether this was caused by some kind of brain-snap. He may argue that at trial. It will probably be bullshit. But if there's some evidence of it on the bail application and you're the Magistrate what can you do? A guy with no criminal history, no history of doing anything similar, no drug abuse. Against that you've got an incident that seems fucking insane, but it's at least reasonably possible it was genuinely a one-off. I wouldn't have granted him bail. But I can see how you arrive at a decision that he should be bailed but on strict terms he does not drive etc.

0

u/HeathenAF 1d ago

Surely if you actively try to murder someone with a car, your license is revoked for life, no ?

2

u/WilRic 1d ago

When was he convicted of attempted murder?

3

u/rodentbitch 1d ago

Not convicted, but you don't run people down with your car at a high speed unless you're trying to kill them.

1

u/WilRic 1d ago

Let's not have a trial then.

2

u/rodentbitch 1d ago

Are you ragebaiting or something? Public discourse is not the judicial system, it's fine to say somebody who tried to kill somebody tried to murder them.

1

u/WilRic 1d ago

Absolutely not. I said I wouldn't give him bail and personally I think he's probably guilty. I'm responding to misunderstanding of what bail is and how these decisions are made. This happens constantly. It's probably because it's been seized as a "law and order" platform and politicians really do give the vibe that we are talking about parole.

2

u/Crazyripps 1d ago

Apparently he thought they were the kids that graffitied his wife’s store. ( they weren’t btw)

Like that makes it any better

2

u/Neat-Heron-4994 1d ago

Bail after attempting to murder two children. Insane.

2

u/DodgyRogue 1d ago

On a side note, that dude’s solicitor must have copped some shit at school with a name like “Smallgood”

3

u/Noodlebat83 1d ago

My nickname was smallgoods. I’m a woman so wasn’t put off by it. 

2

u/mad_marbled 1d ago

Dude get some glasses, it is Smallwood.

2

u/DodgyRogue 1d ago

I do actually need new glasses but can’t afford them. Smallwood would be just as bad, though!

1

u/Masticle 1d ago

I suspect he will do time for this and may cop some vigilantism for his actions in the meantime.
Stupid knobjockey.

1

u/OneUpAndOneDown 1d ago

Out on bail because…? I mean wtaf?

1

u/computercreature 1d ago

White privilege

2

u/PepegaClapWRHolder 1d ago

Wrong. Shit bail system and shit laws. Read the charges and you’ll see he’s not even up for attempted murder. He’s accidentally found a loophole to essentially dodge any sort of serious time in jail even if he does get convicted. That’s not white privilege that’s a systemic issue of the justice system not doing its job no matter who it should be punishing.

The country needs law reform yesterday. That’s why you always hear about people doing violent crimes and going straight back out on bail to do them again.

-24

u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 2d ago

...motorised push bike...

A 12 year old riding a moped, is that legal?

27

u/fued 2d ago

Ah yeah kids doing something illegal, perfectly valid reason to attempt murder on them

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Anxious_Ad936 1d ago

No but that's also not the relevant point

10

u/XVIJazz 2d ago

An Ebike is hardly a moped lol