boyfriday Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 ..he should have had his sentence doubled for having bad hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smack Jack Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Its oppressing the masses. A clear message from a political view point had to be sent to dissidents - break the law during dissident activity and the full extent of the law will be used against you. Its a shot across the bows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff 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. yes and that is not enough to convict someone of murder. If he didn't intend to kill anyone or cause them gbh he cannot be convicted of murder regardless of the other circumstances. He could potentially be convicted of manslaughter but being negligent behind the wheel usually falls into careless driving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 11, 2011 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. you've said what i was trying to say but you did it well and succinct. three cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron 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. one would be manslaughter one murder, thats the difference although manslaughter should be much more than a £200 fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 yes and that is not enough to convict someone of murder. If he didn't intend to kill anyone or cause them gbh he cannot be convicted of murder regardless of the other circumstances. He could potentially be convicted of manslaughter but being negligent behind the wheel usually falls into careless driving I didn't say he should be convicted of murder, that would be impossible to prove. I am making the point that drivers on mobiles, for instance, are as dangerous as drunk drivers, yet they get a £60 fine for an act as dangerous as lobbing a heavy metal thing off a building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted January 11, 2011 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. I can't quite work out what you're saying. If you're saying drivers of dangerous vehicles that put others at risk deserve a much heftier punishment then I'm all with you. If you are saying that this idiot on the roof sdeserves a more leniant punishment then I'm not. Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 I can't quite work out what you're saying. If you're saying drivers of dangerous vehicles that put others at risk deserve a much heftier punishment then I'm all with you. If you are saying that this idiot on the roof sdeserves a more leniant punishment then I'm not. Which is it? Both, in my opinion. Penalties for killer drivers are ansurdly lenient, the penalty for this idiot seems manifestly excessive, again in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Yes sindrift, the driving offences should be re-looked at and be brought up in line with this. He deserves the conviction. The length probably has "making an example of" factored into it! There is a lot of guilty rioters who are getting off absolutely free, he's become a fall guy, they should feel guilty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
decaff Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I didn't say he should be convicted of murder, that would be impossible to prove. I am making the point that drivers on mobiles, for instance, are as dangerous as drunk drivers, yet they get a £60 fine for an act as dangerous as lobbing a heavy metal thing off a building. I get ya. There is a slight difference between the driving on a mobile phone and throwing the fire extinguisher though. Throwing the fire extinguisher comes with intent whereas driving on your phone, or being drunk is more negligent/careless although arguably reasonable people would forsee a risk. Plus a person who is drunk can't usually be convicted of murder because of their altered state of mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.