Bloody good!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11842863
Printable View
Bloody good!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11842863
Very bloody good!
Shame it had to happen in the first place... :(
Will she be punished as severely as the bikers (allegedly) pounded by the courts for group riding as accurately reported in this week's Mostly Contrived Nonsense?
Good! Wonder what she will get when sentanced?
BB
Finally they charged her, they didn't look at the paperwork quick enough and had to rebail her while they did, they where not even sure if they could charge her after the CPS failed to look at the paperwork in time, I am glad they decided they could. She is pleading that she wasn't dricing the car, and doesn't remember leaving the house, as they cannot charge her if they cannot prove she was driving at the time. She didn't stop when she hit Wayne, she kept going, and then dumped the car further alone the motorway and took to the fields, I believe it was the police helicopter that found her, hence why they need to prove it was her behind the wheel.
R.I.P. Wayne, I will forever mourn the conversations we never got to have, and treasure the laughs we had on the conversations we did have.
Justice is served
We shall see, so far she has only been charged and bailed. I would like to say I have faith in the justice system, but I don't. If I get pissed and kill someone with a knife, I will get charged with manslaughter, which carries a maximim of 25 years I believe, if you change the weapon from a knife to a car, well that charge only brings a maximum of 5 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morticia
Justice, in this country? not a chance.
It's really shocking.
5 years is the max and the nsometimes it would be less and then halfed for good behviour.
Running away and trying to claim you weren't there is dispicable.
It seems to me that motoring accidents are almost accepted as collateral damage and an inevitable consequence which is an attitude that should be challenged.
If I was a relative or close friend I think I'd find it extremely hard to deal with.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducatista
I have a view on this, some may find it controversial but I think I speak from a position of experience.
Personally I think that if you knowingly get pissed (and I mean really pissed, i.e. twice the legal limit) and then get into a car and end up killing someone then you should be charged with manslaughter as manslaughter is the UNLAWFUL killing of another human being. Drink driving is unlawful and another human being has been killed. QED in my opinion.
Just for information, the offence for which she has been charged actually carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. Although you can bet your bottom dollar she will only get about 4 or 5 years at the most.
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 :)