Thread: Ahmad Dhani’s 13-Year-Old Son Speeding at 176kph Before Killing Seven in Jakarta

3 years max..not a bad rap for a 13 year old killing 7 people driving a sports car at over 170km per hour after club chucking out time. Daddy will be sorting out/pressurising/bribing all of those 20 prosecution witnesses so should get reduced to a slapped wrist.....oooh, a $1,000 fine too..that's gotta hurt!

What a fooked up world we live in...or at least Asia is....For all the shitty bad press the west gets...no-one is above the law...save maybe the royals

Originally Posted by Necron99

Driving at 13 and killing 7 people isnt enough?

Not if you have money and connections.

It's sorta dropped off the radar a bit.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

lost control of the car his father had given him

it's legal to drive at 13 ?

more legal than adding 2 seats to the back of your van.... according to the boys father.

The equivalent of a small fine, an exaggerated wai in public and that'll be all.

All the rich kids we used to kick the shit out of and rob money from.....I'm so glad we did.

Originally Posted by billy the kid

Originally Posted by kingwilly

lost control of the car his father had given him

it's legal to drive at 13 ?

nope. 18 is the minimum age here nor is driving at 170 km/hr legal, 100 was the limit.

Forgetting that its asia and that justice is something that people should expect.

when you are 13 you are old enough to know when you are doing wrong, but not really old enough to understand consequences. He killed 7 people and has to pay a price... not the price an adult would pay but a price. A life time driving ban, jailing of the cars owner for failing to keep it secure allowing to be become a lethal weapon and removal from his parents care so that his personality can be broken and reformed into something more socially acceptable.

...or a token fine, and qisas.*


* Sharia compo measure allowing blood money to be paid by the perpetrator of a crime, even premeditated crimes, to the relatives of the deceased in cases of accidental death, manslaughter, or murder. It allows those who can afford to pay the qisas to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

And as the victims were probably Muslims, their families should take comfort in knowing the qisas is higher for Muslim than non-Muslim victims, even though the families of female Muslim victims will receive less than the families of male Muslim victims, but still more than non-Muslim victims.

Sounds fair enough, for a 1400 year old code.

to be fair, not much would happen to a 13 year old in the west in similar situations.
If negligence could be proven, the parents might be up for a civil case, but, you would have to prove they condoned or enabled his driving.
They could just say he stole the car after being conditioned by playing gran turrismo...

The father has already admitted buying the car for him!

Yes, but only to sit in whilst playing gran turrismo.

Originally Posted by leemo

...or a token fine, and qisas.*


* Sharia compo measure allowing blood money to be paid by the perpetrator of a crime, even premeditated crimes, to the relatives of the deceased in cases of accidental death, manslaughter, or murder. It allows those who can afford to pay the qisas to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

And as the victims were probably Muslims, their families should take comfort in knowing the qisas is higher for Muslim than non-Muslim victims, even though the families of female Muslim victims will receive less than the families of male Muslim victims, but still more than non-Muslim victims.

Sounds fair enough, for a 1400 year old code.

Nice Muslim rant, but what would the penalty be in the UK for the same thing?

Friggin Christian laws, eh!

Thailand? Rich kid's son or daughter doing the same thing?

Friggin Buddhist laws, eh!

Rich kid killed seven in the US and got off relatively scott-free because the judge deemed that being wealthy caused the crime . . . not the first time the kid was caught

Friggin white separatist Christian laws, eh!


Sometimes you just have to look at a situation and think: fukked up, without trying to apportion blame to anything aside from the actual person who did the crime

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by leemo

...or a token fine, and qisas.*


* Sharia compo measure allowing blood money to be paid by the perpetrator of a crime, even premeditated crimes, to the relatives of the deceased in cases of accidental death, manslaughter, or murder. It allows those who can afford to pay the qisas to avoid being held accountable for their actions.

And as the victims were probably Muslims, their families should take comfort in knowing the qisas is higher for Muslim than non-Muslim victims, even though the families of female Muslim victims will receive less than the families of male Muslim victims, but still more than non-Muslim victims.

Sounds fair enough, for a 1400 year old code.

Nice Muslim rant, but what would the penalty be in the UK for the same thing?

Friggin Christian laws, eh!

Thailand? Rich kid's son or daughter doing the same thing?

Friggin Buddhist laws, eh!

Rich kid killed seven in the US and got off relatively scott-free because the judge deemed that being wealthy caused the crime . . . not the first time the kid was caught

Friggin white separatist Christian laws, eh!


Sometimes you just have to look at a situation and think: fukked up, without trying to apportion blame to anything aside from the actual person who did the crime

Not a rant; I tried to explain how Sharia works in these situations, but it seems you're too far gone to absorb such things.

In the UK, as you asked, he could try the proven defences, that it's not his fault but someone else's, and anyway he's too rich to go to jail. And if they don't work he could always say he was depressed.

Originally Posted by leemo

Not a rant; I tried to explain how Sharia works in these situations, but it seems you're too far gone to absorb such things.

This has to be determined to fall under sharia law first . . . and why would I be too far gone?
I live in a majority Muslim country and know that sharia law is not applicable.

Anyway, I was just highlighting how this would work under Christian and Buddhist laws . . . or are you too far gone to absorb such things?

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by leemo

Not a rant; I tried to explain how Sharia works in these situations, but it seems you're too far gone to absorb such things.

This has to be determined to fall under sharia law first . . . and why would I be too far gone?
I live in a majority Muslim country and know that sharia law is not applicable.

Anyway, I was just highlighting how this would work under Christian and Buddhist laws . . . or are you too far gone to absorb such things?

No such thing as Christian Laws, unless you live in the Vatican.
Buddhist Law code? Where do we find that?

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by leemo

Not a rant; I tried to explain how Sharia works in these situations, but it seems you're too far gone to absorb such things.

This has to be determined to fall under sharia law first . . . and why would I be too far gone?
I live in a majority Muslim country and know that sharia law is not applicable.

Anyway, I was just highlighting how this would work under Christian and Buddhist laws . . . or are you too far gone to absorb such things?

No such thing as Christian Laws, unless you live in the Vatican.
Buddhist Law code? Where do we find that?

Where do you think the bases of 'our' laws originate?

The point was that it's far too easy to say: Islam, there you go.
By the same token, Thai law must be Buddhist law. Follow leemo's logic.

I was making the point that there is a difference between common law and religious law and that leemo's 'explanation' of how sharia law works was not quite appropriate

I'll explain:

Something happens in a Muslim country: Islam, Islam, Islam

More?

There would be some prison time in america. Minor gets out by 18 yrs old.
lots of money involved for victims. Interesting.

Originally Posted by farmerfloyd

There would be some prison time in america. Minor gets out by 18 yrs old.
lots of money involved for victims. Interesting.

Interesting? You've been living under a rock, have you?

Ethan Couch crash: Drink driving teen who killed four is spared jail 'because he's rich' | Mail Online

Affluenza Defense: Rich Texas Teen Gets Probation For Killing 4 Pedestrians While Driving Drunk (VIDEO)

Originally Posted by OckerRocker

Originally Posted by farmerfloyd

There would be some prison time in america. Minor gets out by 18 yrs old.
lots of money involved for victims. Interesting.

Interesting? You've been living under a rock, have you?

Ethan Couch crash: Drink driving teen who killed four is spared jail 'because he's rich' | Mail Online

Affluenza Defense: Rich Texas Teen Gets Probation For Killing 4 Pedestrians While Driving Drunk (VIDEO)

It seems these people ended up in the dock, though the only thing we know for certain is that you are privy to all that happened once they got there. And I'm sure you're all for the 'rule of law', but only if it works your way.

But, do you think Dhani's kid will be treated to the inside view of a courtroom?

I'm betting he takes the Sharia route, tho you could call it whatever suits your position, which makes Sharia very relevant to this discussion even if you do happen to live peacefully in a Muslim country, which btw is the real irrelevance.

Originally Posted by leemo

I'm betting he takes the Sharia route, tho you could call it whatever suits your position,

Erm, they dont use Sharia in Jakarta, nor is there any hint of the family suggesting so. You're about 2,000 miles off.

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by leemo

I'm betting he takes the Sharia route, tho you could call it whatever suits your position,

Erm, they dont use Sharia in Jakarta, nor is there any hint of the family suggesting so. You're about 2,000 miles off.

Sounds like you are saying there is no Sharia in Indo within 2000 miles of Jakarta.

Is that a fact, or just your honest opinion?