F. Sidebottom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You think drivers "accidently" drive whilst being unable to see properly? The driver who killed Miss Cairns was steering 20 tons of lorry around when he knew he couldn't see properly. Her death was no accident, it was just as likely as if a fire extinguisher had been heaved off a roof. There's carelessness. There's stupidity. And there's purposefully attempting to injure and kill. They are all different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Apples and oranges. You can't compare the two. He wasn't drunk. He knew what he was doing. A long sentence though, I agree. What has being sober got to do with the difference between cars and fire extinguishers? Are you suggesting the only fatal car collisions involve drunk drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 You think drivers "accidently" drive whilst being unable to see properly? The driver who killed Miss Cairns was steering 20 tons of lorry around when he knew he couldn't see properly. Her death was no accident, it was just as likely as if a fire extinguisher had been heaved off a roof. I guess the argument is that one is a case of bad judgement and one was a premeditated action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 He's lucky that the extinguisher didn't hit someone, and it was luck and not judgement that it didn't. If it had the lad would have been doing a lot longer stint in prison. we don't know whether he missed coz of chance or because he meant to. i'm not defending what the kid did. he was most likely wasted what I'm saying is while justice must be SEEN to be done as well as DONE i think the courts went for the former at the expense of the later. people get done for drunk driving, not attempted vehicular homicide/ manslaughter. the get done for speeding, not more. etc. if he had done this where there was no media attention and the whole country was watching i still think he'd have got off without a day in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 i agree. career burglars etc get away with tags and community service. this kid, while unlucky, and, yes, stupid didn't deserve, if we look at others on the streets right now, to see even a day in jail. just being made an example of, or a martyr, if people see the government/ judiciary as being petty and vindictive. Have to disagree with that. This pillock could have killed someone quite easily, and although he didn't have the intention of doing so, any reasonable person would realise that aimlessly tossing a 10kg lump of metal from a height is highly likely to cause someone serious injury or death. Career burglars who endanger life are invariably sent to prison too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 How is this absurd? This will open up a cam of worms to people who don't fully understand how the law works but the guy obviously intended to throw the fire extinguisher and that is possibly the reason why he has been sent down. You're also missing the point with the driving, because if it is shown that a person intended to kill or cause GBH with their car then yes they can be done for murder, but driving on the phone, etc is negligence and falls into the category of careless driving. The key is the "intention" Driving a 20 ton lorry whilst being unable to see properly makes an accident extremely likely. Just as likely as if you threw a fire extinguisher off a roof. In both examples you are taking absurd risks around other people. The lorry driver DID NOT get in his vehicle and drive it that day accidently. He may not have intended to kill Eilidh, but his actions made it extremely likely that a death would take place. Yet he was fined just £200, less than the cost of the bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Driving a 20 ton lorry whilst being unable to see properly makes an accident extremely likely. Just as likely as if you threw a fire extinguisher off a roof. In both examples you are taking absurd risks around other people. The lorry driver DID NOT get in his vehicle and drive it that day accidently. He may not have intended to kill Eilidh, but his actions made it extremely likely that a death would take place. Yet he was fined just £200, less than the cost of the bike. That's just rubbish. If this lad had dropped a fire extinguisher whilst doing something else, then possible so. But he threw it. HE THREW IT. He meant to cause injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 we don't know whether he missed coz of chance or because he meant to. i'm not defending what the kid did. he was most likely wasted what I'm saying is while justice must be SEEN to be done as well as DONE i think the courts went for the former at the expense of the later. people get done for drunk driving, not attempted vehicular homicide/ manslaughter. the get done for speeding, not more. etc. if he had done this where there was no media attention and the whole country was watching i still think he'd have got off without a day in jail. You're right we do not know this, but this is the issue that the court judged him upon based on the information provided by the defence and prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 The point is that the offence of Dangerous Driving can be applied to a situation where no-one has been injured, but where the driver did something which was below an accepted standard and which should have been seen to have been dangerous by any reasonable driver. That's a reasonable parallel to this man's offence. Yet throwing something heavy that hits nobody gets a far harsher sentence than driving something heavy that kills someone. I'd rather make sure that anyone responsible for violent or aggressive or recklessly stupid behaviour, whether protestors, motorists or police officers, are held to the same standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 What has being sober got to do with the difference between cars and fire extinguishers? Are you suggesting the only fatal car collisions involve drunk drivers? Indeed what have cars and fire extinguishers got to do with each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.