Printable View
I will not comment on this individual case, but in general terms, everyone knows the dangers of drink-driving and there is no excuse in any circumstances for getting behind the wheel (or handle bars) whilst under the influence. I think the current law needs revisiting with a view to introducing tougher penalties.
time for the government to bring in the zero tolerence on drink driving law,i know not all people agree with this but it cuts out the"i thought i was ok i only had the one". [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Interested to know what a Lawful killing is.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonaDog
The limit on drink is fine as it is but as is usual the loony minority create draconian enforcement on the majority.
Having said that though it is a fact that only one pint/equivalent can cause havoc with some individuals but they would have found this out before driving whereas others are fine with 3/4 pints. Anyway don't agree with the idea of zero limit.
An unlawful killing is where there is no lawful excuse and it's in breach of criminal law.Quote:
Interested to know what a Lawful killing is.
So if someone jumps in front of a train, then the driver has a "lawful" excuse for the killing.
I don't think there is any concept of "Lawful killing" but it can certainly happen accidentally where there is nothing unlawful.
An example of a lawful killing is a firearms officer shooting someone dead, provided there was justification in taking that course of action. Another example is where somebody has killed another person but it has been held that the person was acting in self-defence (self-defence being one of the lawful defences to murder).Quote:
Originally Posted by Col
As a matter of interest, if a boxer dies in the ring during a bout, is that classed as a "Lawful killing?"
I would say it was lawful if there was no gross negligence and it was a freak accident due to the inherently dangerous nature of the sport that they entered into willingly.
Princess Diana was killed unlawfully as well as some of those involved in friendly fire incidents where there was gross negligence.
There isn't going to be straight answer to any scenario as it depends on the circumstances and whether negligence is involved.
Does the answer lie with 'intent' in some way ?
The train driver and boxer didn't intend to kill but the firearms shooter did have intent to kill rather than disable but is deemed innocent as the 'state' has ordered the killing and therefore is lawful as the death penalty was.
Not sure about in wars as the enemy may see the killing of their people to be unlawful......for instance the bombings of German cities in WW2 and the nuke bombs on Japan could be seen as unlawful killing as the raids on Britains cities/civilians.
Soz this gone a bit off topic ;D
mmmm interesting ..... not thought about it much before :)