Eater Sundae Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 To the OP - your post was well written and I did manage to get about a third of the way before I gave up - it was just too dense a load of reading for to take onboard at once. The run of the thread suggests others did the same and aare having a related but different discussion. Maybe you could try and summarise your main points and repost as it looks like a potentially interesting discussion. It was a conscious discussion to start the tread with a long post as I wanted to cover several related matters. Having said that, it was a surprise to me just how big it was once I'd submitted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Have you figoured out why mens rea is required yet? Yes. Are you saying the penalty for killing someone should be less than the penalty for not killing someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Yes. Are you saying the penalty for killing someone should be less than the penalty for not killing someone? You are not worth wasting breath on mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 You chose to ignore the comparison between what Edward Woollard got for his offence and what a first time drink driver can get. That was the point of my first post on the thread, which is a comment on the inequalities on the legal system. You quiet rightly pointed out that he could have killed someone, but so can a drunk driver. So yes, I interpret that as you seem happy for drunk drivers to get of leniently. Throw a fire extinguisher, hurt nobody, 32 months in jail. Paul Staines, the portly political blogger who would rather be referred to as Guido Fawkes, has gone out of his way to criticise and condemn the muppet* who threw a fire extinguisher off the roof of the Conservatives Party’s office building during the first big tuition fees demonstration. When said muppet was jailed yesterday, Staines gleefully reported: A good day for justice it seems. Edward Woollard who was revealed as the infamous thug who threw a fire extinguisher off the roof off CCHQ, narrowly avoiding killing a copper, has been sent down for 2 years and 8 months for violent disorder. Just long enough to do an Open University course. The judge said the heavy sentence against Wollard is warning to other protesters not to ‘cross the line’. Fair enough. Woollard did something stupid and dangerous. He propelled a heavy lump of metal at great speed and with no control, an act that could have led to severe injury or death if someone had been unfortunate enough to get in the way. However, is Staines really in a good place to comment on this? In 2008 and he picked up his second conviction for drink driving. After spending the afternoon getting ****** he drove off across central London with a blood alcohol level that was twice the legal limit. The police stopped him when they saw his car veering across lanes of traffic. To put it another way, Staines did something stupid and dangerous. He propelled a heavy lump of metal at great speed and with no control, an act that could have led to severe injury or death if someone had been unfortunate enough to get in the way. Choosing to drive a car over the speed limit, recklessly or whilst over the drink driver limit are all pretty much the same as what this stupid lad decided to do. The consequences of momentary innatention are much greater if the car is being driven over the speed limit. Which is one of the reasons why we have speed limits, because we are after all human and not perfect and all of us at one time or another will have had a momentary lapse of concentration. If we are travelling at or below the speed limit other drivers or pedestrians often have time to react or if not the consequences of being in an accident are less. I've never heard of someone caught for drink driving as a first offence ever being jailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel's Mum Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Well I managed to read about 2/3 of the OP but I think I get the drift of your concerns. To the OP: you arent too far off the mark with your risk assessment theory on how the law works already. When recklessness is being considered, it all comes down to the mens rea (which I think someone has already mentioned on this thread) and this is usually worked out on hindsight. The law tends to work on the intention at the time of commission of the offence and how a reasonable person would view the actions. To complicate matters further, the law defines recklessness in 2 categories: Caldwell recklessness and Cunningham recklessness (taken from the cases where the principles became settled law: R v Caldwell 1982 and R v Cunningham 1957 respectively. The arguments and decisions used in these cases which provide the points of law still in force are a favourite topic for law degree coursework so for that reason I wont explain in full or my post will end up being 2,500 words! By way of example and using two particular examples from this thread: in the boy with the extinguisher case, this would be Caldwell recklessness as the theory is that a reasonable person would know that throwing a heavy object from a height into a crowd of people may cause injury or damage. In the taxi driver case, this would be Cunningham recklessness as driving a vehicle without insurance (although dishonest) does not often lead to injury or damage. There are many good books on criminal law which all begin by looking at mens rea and can explain these points a thousand times better than me but I would just say that however much we may disagree with the outcome of a case that there are always many points of settled law which have been pondered carefully in coming to the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 as i said did he look before he threw it? did he know there was a crowd exactly below it? did he shout TAKE THIS COPPERS before launching it? He looked over the edge then made a aimed shot at the Police officers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFobb3MCGI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIM_zOHTCnk But Mel, as a self proclaimed anarchist, i'm not surprised you defend this idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 He looked over the edge then made a aimed shot at the Police officers! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdFobb3MCGI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIM_zOHTCnk But Mel, as a self proclaimed anarchist, i'm not surprised you defend this idiot! Nobody's defended anyone, stop posting silly straw men. Do you punish the act or the result? Is throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof really different to getting behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk? Both involve directing a heavy metal object close past people. To put it another way, drunk drivers do something stupid and dangerous. They propella heavy lump of metal at great speed and with no control, an act that could have led to severe injury or death if someone had been unfortunate enough to get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Nobody's defended anyone, stop posting silly straw men. Do you punish the act or the result? Is throwing a fire extinguisher off a roof really different to getting behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk? Both involve directing a heavy metal object close past people. To put it another way, drunk drivers do something stupid and dangerous. They propella heavy lump of metal at great speed and with no control, an act that could have led to severe injury or death if someone had been unfortunate enough to get in the way. Read his post, he is as good as defending his intentional actions! If you read my earlier posts, both are as bad as each other, it's the driving offence which needs to be stiffened in my opinion. Both are reckless and bound to end in sorrow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Read his post, he is as good as defend him! If you read my earlier posts, both are as bad as each other, it's the driving offence which needs to be stiffened in my opinion. Both are reckless and bound to end in sorrow! Nobody has defended the extinguisher thrower, stop making stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Nobody has defended the extinguisher thrower, stop making stuff up. Calm down Re-read the whole previous page! EDIT: Since mod edit this now should encompass this and previous pages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.