Pat Ayres Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Sorry to hijack your thread Molly, I'llnever sleep until I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 YEA, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Back to subject then. How does it work? Is t the person overtaken or the person nearly collided with that grasses the bad driver up and is that enough evidence to convict? "Well your dishonour, I was overtaken badly by this person, who I couldn't see or identify, apart from the back of their head. This is only my opinion of course as a person who has never committed a bad maneuver or gone beyond the speed limit in my life." "Fair enough and quid pro quo me old duck, you're busted you towel wearing camal shagger you"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
integer Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Perhaps the best way to get this thread locked is to suggest the sentence was imposed because the oncoming driver in question was a police officer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 I think given the circumstances there would be several people either in touch with the police that would give statements, or the police getting in touch with them to request the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 The charge of dangerous driving applies to cases where the standard of driving is 'well below the standard of a reasonable competent driver' - or something along those lines, it's a legal definition which the judge or jury consider. Driving without due care and attention is a lesser charge for when the incident wasn't the result of driving 'well below' that standard. The results of the bad driving don't really come into it. That's why you might get someone on trial for death by dangerous driving, who ends up 'only' being convicted of driving without due care and attention. The jury has decided that the standard of driving wasn't "well below", and therefore didn't fall into the category of dangerous driving. I understand how it can seem bizarre to someone who isn't aware of all of the legal processes, but if you've ever sat in court during one of those trials you'll learn that there are strict legal definitions that apply. The deemster doesn't just make up the law on the day depending on who's on trial. Only conspiracy theorists think that. Although you can never discount the effects of a good lawyer on a stupid jury. What Mr Sausages said: mere carelessness could unfortunately result in the deaths of several people and a willfully dangerous act could through good fortune not injure anyone. It is still absolutely appropriate for dangerous driving to be severely punished. I am frequently shocked by the poor judgment displayed in overtaking manouvres that people make on public roads - I couldn't give a rat's arse if they end up pasted over their windscreens: it's the poor bastards coming the other way that I'm concerned about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 In neutral terms and without reference to any particular case due care is a lapse of attention meaning that your driving drops below the standard generally accepted dangerous driving is, well dangerous. What each causes is irrelevant, the same incident may cause material damage to another vehicle, slight or serious personal injury or death. Those consequences may affect sentence within the range for the offence but not the offence charged You drive down the prom, your attention is distracted, you are otherwise driving at a proper speed and manner, you do not see the car ahead stop, you shunt it. Due care. You are driving at a reasonable speed, it is dark, for whatever (poor lighting, dazzled by oncoming traffic) reason you do not see a person standing in the road or lying in the road, you hit and injure them, again due care Same situation but you have previously been warned not to drive in the dark because you have an eye condition which means you cannot see in the dark Dangerous, you decided to drive when you knew it would cause a danger You are driving on the mountain, there is a blind bend ahead, you take a chanvce, you overatke, you cannot see what is round the corner, fortunately there is no accident as no one was coming. Dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Remove all the posts you want, it won't alter the fact that several people who should have been convicted for manslaughter got off with a fine because they killed a biker by driving poorly and got a good lawyer How much they suffer with their conscience depends on whether they blame themselves or the biker The family & friends left behind don't have that option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 manslaughter for driving was abolished nearly 50 yeras ago, replaced by causing death by dangerous or reckless driving because juries would not convict someone of a manslaughter offence as they were thinking "there but for the grace of god" I know I work in the system. I see no bias to deep pockets or position in life Every one gets free legal advice via the duty advocate scheme both at the police station or at court when first apperaing. Complicated cases attract legal aid if sero ious enough or you can pay. I suspect, but cannot be certain, based on experience, Mr Lowey did not pay, his insurance compnay, with an eye on the potential civil claim would have paid for that. Most policies have a legal defence element, so its not your wealth that counts, we are all equal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 manslaughter for driving was abolished nearly 50 yeras ago, replaced by causing death by dangerous or reckless driving because juries would not convict someone of a manslaughter offence as they were thinking "there but for the grace of god" I know I work in the system. I see no bias to deep pockets or position in life Every one gets free legal advice via the duty advocate scheme both at the police station or at court when first apperaing. Complicated cases attract legal aid if sero ious enough or you can pay. I suspect, but cannot be certain, based on experience, Mr Lowey did not pay, his insurance compnay, with an eye on the potential civil claim would have paid for that. Most policies have a legal defence element, so its not your wealth that counts, we are all equal I am very sorry, but in this world of back handers, dodgy deals etc etc, there is no way you can say that a person's social standings/connections etc have no sway at all in the courts. Time and time again, we see well to do folk getting slaps on the wrist for things that us commoners get dragged over the coals for. Living with the knowledge that someone died because of your actions is a given, regardless of what context, and should NOT be a contributary factor when passing sentence. Should haves, Would haves and Could Haves, the basic fact is that this case did not result in a death or accident, whereas the 'other' case did, and the sentence is NOT inkeeping with the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I am very sorry, but in this world of back handers, dodgy deals etc etc, there is no way you can say that a person's social standings/connections etc have no sway at all in the courts. Time and time again, we see well to do folk getting slaps on the wrist for things that us commoners get dragged over the coals for. Living with the knowledge that someone died because of your actions is a given, regardless of what context, and should NOT be a contributary factor when passing sentence. Should haves, Would haves and Could Haves, the basic fact is that this case did not result in a death or accident, whereas the 'other' case did, and the sentence is NOT inkeeping with the crime. [bitchslap] Please hang up your tin-foil hat and step away from the conversation until you can relate the facts of actual cases to the outcomes and show something other than the law being correctly applied. Ignorance is no excuse for airing persecution complexes and far-fetched conspiracy theories... although it is almost certainly the explanation. [/bitchslap] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iomrob Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 I am very sorry, but in this world of back handers, dodgy deals etc etc, there is no way you can say that a person's social standings/connections etc have no sway at all in the courts. Time and time again, we see well to do folk getting slaps on the wrist for things that us commoners get dragged over the coals for. Living with the knowledge that someone died because of your actions is a given, regardless of what context, and should NOT be a contributary factor when passing sentence. Should haves, Would haves and Could Haves, the basic fact is that this case did not result in a death or accident, whereas the 'other' case did, and the sentence is NOT inkeeping with the crime. [bitchslap] Please hang up your tin-foil hat and step away from the conversation until you can relate the facts of actual cases to the outcomes and show something other than the law being correctly applied. Ignorance is no excuse for airing persecution complexes and far-fetched conspiracy theories... although it is almost certainly the explanation. [/bitchslap] we all know of a case but cant {for legal reasons} mention it on here. as im lead to believe, the UK are bringing in a new charge of Death By Driving Without Due Care and Attention. but the island is waiting to see how it goes , before think about bringing it in here. i dont know why as we have our own laws anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Perhaps the best way to get this thread locked is to suggest the sentence was imposed because the oncoming driver in question was a police officer? getting warm, but surely that won't get a thre4ad locked. This post however: . . . . . got off with a fine because they killed a biker by driving poorly and got a good lawyer How much they suffer with their conscience depends on whether they blame themselves or the biker The family & friends left behind don't have that option ......is red hot for not only getting the thread locked, but the forum removed off the face of the internet. With menaces. Like what happened before. Twice. Probably. Fortunately the forum folk are a lot more cautious these days and we realise that it is better to have a forum that doesn't doesn't discuss a certain case rather than have no forum at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 18, 2007 Share Posted November 18, 2007 Some folk don't give a fuck about the legal consequences for the site owners though. Those people need to reconsider their memberships. Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.