the fact that you are even saying whatever i have quoted reflects that you had not read whatever i have been saying. either that or you are just commenting for the sake of commenting.
well, or you don't "seems to know what i am talking about" :bheart:
just for the sake of clarification, once again i repeat myself for the last time:
(1) it does not matter if the car is made by lexus to have the defendant make a claim of soundproofing. this is what alankhtwhatever seems to believe. he claimed that "lexus" was relevant to the case because of the soundproofing. this suggests that soundproofing is unique to lexus cars. obviously this is not the case.
(2) all my points are made based on my opinion
that "lexus" is irrelevant to the entire case, save for the fact that the person was indeed driving a lexus. you could just as easily replace "lexus" with "suzuki", "kia", "hyundai" and if the proposition by the defendant sounds ridiculous to you, it sounds ridiculous and that is your point of view and you're entitled to it. however, there is no reason why anyone should make more noise about this case simply because a lexus was involved, unless they aren't being objective. if a driver can drag a cyclist for 2 km, claim that they thought they had hit a branch, i think the car brand really shouldn't matter, should it?
(3) i am merely making a point about the point in (2). if you can't understand this, and seek to extend or extrapolate this to mean that i support the judge's decision, or disagree with people making statements about branches, cars and what-not, then that's your very own (mis)interpretation and please do not carry on with such a folly. i had not made clear any stand on this incident, and i'm not going to bother doing so.