boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 a criminal act, yes. damage of property, maybe, but not to kill anyone. if he had actually killed someone, and he had a good lawyer the lawyer would probably have managed to show that his intention wasn't to kill and he might have gotten the same amount of time. as we know, some people have walked from manslaughter. I think any lawyer would have been hard pressed to mount a defence for this individual, unless of course he could have proved he was merely attempting to help put out a fire on the ground floor with as little delay as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I wonder if spindrift would have posted this thread if the chap concerned had been on an EDL rally, say, rather than a left-wing anti-government demo. I suspect not. Aye, then he'd want it to be 10 years, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 It is the premeditation and recklessness of his action and possible consequences of it that will have decided his sentence most probably. Imagine this scenario, Police....Why did you take the fire extinguisher onto the roof. Suspect...Not sure. Police....Did you throw the fire extinguisher off the roof to the ground below where there was a crowd of people ? Suspect... Yes. Police......What do you think the result would have been if the fire extinguisher had hit one of those people below on the head? Suspect...Killed them. not exactly. that same scenario would play out if someone fell asleep on the wheel coz they were tired. that you know what you action MIGHT result in just adds recklessness to your charge but what you actually intended to do is the main thing. this is the law in that case as i understand. but might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 Statistics and data, give the real picture, not just reasearch and theory. If mobile phone usage was more dangerous than drink driving, there would be far more many casualties and deaths casued by drivers using their mobile phones than drink drivers. . No there wouldn't, because of the disparity in rates, which the research makes explicit and which you yourself quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 3 years isn't so bad, 2 for being stupid 1 for endangement to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I think any lawyer would have been hard pressed to mount a defence for this individual, unless of course he could have proved he was merely attempting to help put out a fire on the ground floor with as little delay as possible. :hihi: good point. but people have gotten off with manslaughter because the lawyer simply has to make the jury doubt that the defendant intended to kill. which would be too hard in this case. kid has no priors and there's no real motive for him to want to kill anyone. unless he saw his ex somewhere down there. seriously though, i still say the kid got it bad. like i said, we all have done some of the same stupid stunts, or worse, but he was just caught on camera, in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Has the student also been involved in using a mobile phone whilst drink driving ? If not why is this subject being discussed at such length on this particular thread ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 No there wouldn't, because of the disparity in rates, which the research makes explicit and which you yourself quoted. Never mind the reasearch. Let's stick to facts. The ban on driving whilst using a phone was in 2003 was it not? So since 2003 it has been a specific offence. Therefor since 2003, any accident involving injuries or fatalities caused by mobile phone usage would have been recorded as such, just as accidents caused by drink drivers are. So where are the stats to support the theory that mobile phone usage whilst driving is more dangerous than drink driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 not exactly. that same scenario would play out if someone fell asleep on the wheel coz they were tired. that you know what you action MIGHT result in just adds recklessness to your charge but what you actually intended to do is the main thing. this is the law in that case as i understand. but might be wrong. the answer to the first question would be different why did you drive the car to get from A-B a very different answer to the fire extinguisher answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 3 years isn't so bad, 2 for being stupid 1 for endangement to others. If i got 2 years every time i was stupid i would have a few life sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.