spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author 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 ? Becasue of the wild disparity in sentences for equally rash and dangerous acts. If you disagree with this you would need to explain why steering half a ton of metal around vulnerable road users whilst potentially lethally distracted is not the same as heaving two kilos of metal toward a crowd of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 : like i said, we all have done some of the same stupid stunts, or worse, but he was just caught on camera, in public. The phrase, But for the grace of God go I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Becasue of the wild disparity in sentences for equally rash and dangerous acts. If you disagree with this you would need to explain why steering half a ton of metal around vulnerable road users whilst potentially lethally distracted is not the same as heaving two kilos of metal toward a crowd of people. It has been explained quite clearly many times by many different people. the intention is very different, if you compared the extinguisher incident with carrying a knife then you would have an argument, driving a car however is very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Becasue of the wild disparity in sentences for equally rash and dangerous acts. If you disagree with this you would need to explain why steering half a ton of metal around vulnerable road users whilst potentially lethally distracted is not the same as heaving two kilos of metal toward a crowd of people. One is a road traffic offence and the other a public order offence which have different sentencing guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff 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. Falling asleep at the wheel is a careless/negligent/reckless act but it does not carry the required intention in the same way as throwing a fire extinguisher does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 It has been explained quite clearly many times by many different people. the intention is very different, if you compared the extinguisher incident with carrying a knife then you would have an argument, driving a car however is very different. I don't see why. Driving recklessly isn't done unintentionally, the driver was fully aware of what they were doing and chose, voluntarily, to engage in risky behaviour that significantly increases the danger to others, just like lobbing stuff off buildings. Say the student said: "Yep, I lobbed the fire extinguisher off a building towards a crowd" would you accept that in mitigation the same as a driver who chooses to get in their car whilst drunk and drive down a crowded high street? After all, the drunk would say: "Yep, I drove past people in a half ton vehicle but I didn't mean to kill anyone?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Statistics and data, give the real picture, not just reasearch and theory. They do not give you causation only correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 :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. That may well be the case Kaimani, but usually the defence is driven by a number of different arguments, which create that doubt. Had the fire extinguisher been resting on the ledge of the balcony and the defendant brushed past it and it fell fair enough, or if he genuinely believed there was no one on the ground below-but deliberately and recklessly tossing it over the balcony during a riot situation is an instant turn off as far as juries and judges are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 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 I'm afraid it wouldn't. question one was "why did you take the fire extinguisher to the roof?" seeing as it after the fact and they all know there was no fire there it's loaded to show the error of the kid's way. the driver would need to be asked "why did you drive when so tired/drunk/on the phone etc." in your case the kid would only be asked "why did you take the fire extinguisher?" to which he'd say "to take it to the roof." only then would we get to the other questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 The phrase, But for the grace of God go I. i don't know that phrase. what does it mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.