Just seen this on CH4 news, hope they catch her

Ok so everything that she has done post the event has been unforgiveable but can those above espousing vengeance (assuming that they drive) really tell me that they have never been momentarily distracted whilst driving a car? I think that one of the reasons that folk get limited sentences for this sort of thing is the 'there but for the grace of God go I' feeling on behalf of the judge/jurors.
 
mtbfix":30401pfc said:
Ok so everything that she has done post the event has been unforgiveable but can those above espousing vengeance (assuming that they drive) really tell me that they have never been momentarily distracted whilst driving a car? I think that one of the reasons that folk get limited sentences for this sort of thing is the 'there but for the grace of God go I' feeling on behalf of the judge/jurors.

I don't drive and never have. I also don't buy into the argument that you've outlined above. "It could've been me" isn't something which a Judge or Jury should by any rights be taking into consideration in an unbiased court case.

Kill somebody with a gun even accidently and you're probably looking at a manslaughter charge at least, kill somebody with a car and you get a couple of years. I just don't feel that that's right I'm afraid but then I am pretty much zero tolerance when it comes to vehicular manslaughter, drink driving or for that matter any other kind of crime which could potentially leave another member of society dead.

Get caught drink driving once and you should get a life ban, kill someone with a car whilst driving carelessly or under the influence of alcohol and it's into the pokey for the rest of your natural born.

But that's just me mind :lol: and in reality I know that what we need in situations like this is something more of a middle ground where there is a definate sentence which is proportionate with the crime.
 
awaycaboose":3uoi7m8l said:
Kill somebody with a gun even accidently and you're probably looking at a manslaughter charge at least, kill somebody with a car and you get a couple of years. I just don't feel that that's right.

You don't 'accidentally' put a loaded gun in your pocket, take it out to point it at someone, remove the safety and pull the trigger.

It is conceivable that you could kill someone with a car in circumstances that were largely beyond your control however.

Doesn't excuse what this woman did, but I don't think that gun crime is a sensible comparison :roll:
 
Russell":w6mlr323 said:
awaycaboose":w6mlr323 said:
Kill somebody with a gun even accidently and you're probably looking at a manslaughter charge at least, kill somebody with a car and you get a couple of years. I just don't feel that that's right.

You don't 'accidentally' put a loaded gun in your pocket, take it out to point it at someone, remove the safety and pull the trigger.

It is conceivable that you could kill someone with a car in circumstances that were largely beyond your control however.

Doesn't excuse what this woman did, but I don't think that gun crime is a sensible comparison :roll:

Yeah, I was thinking more in terms of a shooting accident say where a bunch of folk were shooting grouse or the like and where the shooter who caused the accident was found to be in some way criminally negligent.

But yeah, maybe the "A fink cars is as bad as guns" thing is laying it on a bit thick! :lol:

Maybe we need to return to a time when a guy carrying a flag used to walk ahead of the motor vehicle to alert other road users. :lol:
 
Back
Top