Re: This one's going down
 

There are three potential stages under Regulation K5.

1. Whether a person has been convicted of an offence committed in connection with his service as a member of the Police Service and whether an application should be made to the Secretary of State for a certificate of forfeiture (“Certificate Decision”).
2. Whether the offence is certified by the Secretary of state to be gravely injurious to the interests of the State or to be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service.
3. Whether the pension should be forfeit and, if so, by what percentage and for how long (“Forfeiture Decision”).

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Re: This one's going down
 

Says he's resigned from the force.

You have now resigned from the police force with all that means for you and your family. ?

Re: This one's going down
 

... AFAIK that means he'll probably keep his pension, by avoiding any disciplinary proceedings.

Re: This one's going down
 

That is just plain wrong then

Re: This one's going down
 

At the risk of being accused of always jumping to the defence of the Police how is it wrong?

Did he set out with the express intention of killing someone that night? Was he corrupt in any way?

No. He made a horrendous error of judgement which has cost him his liberty and job. He won't get a full Police pension but I don't think he should lose everything he's paid into it over the years.

Re: This one's going down
 

He has been found guilty of a criminal offence and is now serving a prison sentence thats about as far away from what being a police officer should be. He has done the worst thing anyone can do and thats take a life. Think he should be rewarded for all his hard work by continuing to take public funds?? sorry I do not

Re: This one's going down
 

Have to agree. he wasn't found guilty and sent to prison because everyone felt sorry for him. it was because he killed someone and he's guilty.

You can sit there and feel sorry for him, make sure he's got everything he needs to make the sentence as easy as possible, but at the end of the day he's been found guilty of a serious criminal offence.

I think there is a good chance he will lose his pension for being convicted. you can't just resign and keep it, and get sacked and lose it.

Re: This one's going down
 

I would say there is a million miles of a difference between intentionally killing someone and killing them by accident.

Re: This one's going down
 

But you'd agree that he's a criminal?
Drink drivers deserve all they get in court, but if they didn't intentionally intend to kill the person, then should we be leniant and hope they don't lose their job and everything?

Re: This one's going down
 

I believe Derek was talking about the guy's pension, which was contributory - why should he lose that?

Re: This one's going down
 

I got a lecture off a traffic poilce for speeding and he said by speeding I am automatically intending on killing someone if I do kill somebody.....if that makes sense, the way he said it made sense.

Re: This one's going down
 

I was talking about the drunk drivers pension.
and as I said, I think there's a chance he can forfeit the pension.

Here's an example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4896564.stm

Re: This one's going down
 

He has been convicted in a court of law so yes he is a criminal. Whether I think he should of been convicted is another matter.

There is also a big difference between negligence and intentional acts.

Are you comparing someone who repeatedly sexually assaulted women, when on duty and in uniform, to someone who accidentally killed someone? :confused:

I'd much rather have John Dougal patrolling the streets than Dean Stewart.

Some of the 'highlights' of his case

Re: This one's going down
 

At least we can agree on one thing then.

No. it was an example of how a pension can be forfeited, and resigning before being sacked doesn't guarantee you the right to keep it.

Re: This one's going down
 

not for the person who is dead there isnt

Re: This one's going down
 

So by your logic everyone who kills someone, either by accident or intent, deserves to be locked up?

Re: This one's going down
 

There's no answer to that.

He's not saying that Derek.
I can see exactly what he's saying in answer to what you said.

there is a million miles of a difference between intentionally killing someone and killing them by accident.

and he got locked up for dangerous driving. not just the killing of the girl.

Re: This one's going down
 

I know. Just pointing out how it isn't as simple as some people think.

Re: This one's going down
 

This wasnt an accident you do not do time for accidents

Causing death by dangerous driving if you think thats an accident you need to quit the force

Re: This one's going down
 

Not the kind of threads i like to comment in for the most part but how can you call that an accident,loyalties aside.He chose to drive at that ridiculous speed in a built up area and chose to do so without any blues & two`s.

I hope he gets whats coming to him tonight.
Any of the rest of us would if we killed a child,that much i can assure you.

EDIT:Unfortunately though he`ll be kept down the block(or more likely the hospital wing) for his own protection for the first few days then he`ll be wisked off to some cushy open jail with all the other bent coppers & judges and a load of your everyday kind of con`s who wont do much for fear of getting sent back to closed conditions.

Re: This one's going down
 

He'll be segregated from the normal prisoners. the Vulnerable Prisoners wing.

Re: This one's going down
 

I doubt he`ll even see any VPU.
If he does though,well,even the beasts & grasses hate coppers so he wont last long in there i`d imagine.
I`ll stick with SEG/Hospital Wing>Open Jail....Home in time for next Xmas,if not sooner.EDIT:...like this Xmas.

Re: This one's going down
 

It was never in a million years an accident as he speeded after the driver with intent to catch him at a speed far in excess and without any warnings such as his blues and twos being on.

It was just Hayley's poor fault that she happened to be crossing the road when he hit her at 94mph killing her instantly, so never ever was this merely an accident.

As for his pension it should be given to Hayley's family or they should sue him for it, I personally would have the clothes of his back.

Re: This one's going down
 

I see the self righteous brigade are out in force as usual this evening. It makes me sick how little sense some people have of proportionality. It's oh, so easy to wave a picth fork and demand people be flogged and dragged through the streets on the back of a cart isn't it. There once was a time when we hanged people for petty theft and I have no doubt there are some members of this forum who would love us to go back to those days. Nevertheless, I can't help wondering what secret inadequacies they are ashamed of, that they feel the need to shout so loudly and point at other people.

This ex-copper made a stupid error of judgement. Possibly he was arrogant as hell along with it. Well, he will go to jail, for three years - a length of time determined by someone who is professionally qualified to make that decision. And when he gets out he will have to start a new career from scratch, with whoever will have him. What possible justice would be served if, 20-odd years from now, he is denied whatever pension he has worked for and is forced into relative poverty? That's not justice, it's petty, small minded, vindictiveness. Shame, shame, shame on all of you.

Re: This one's going down
 

Chris, people go to prison a lot longer for dealing drugs. all he had to do was do his job properly, an error of judgement isn't good enough when there's many people being prosecuted/fined/imprisoned everyday for what was an error of judgement on their part.

At the end of the day he is just another person who broke the law and paid the price. the fact that he was a "copper" makes some people think that he should be let off because he was doing his job.

his job wasn't to endanger lives, and it certainly wasn't to kill somebody as a result of doing his job wrong.

Re: This one's going down
 

But again, the point is the pension, not the sentence.

Re: This one's going down
 

I absolutely agree with you. I don't think he should be let off. My complaint this evening isn't that he got caught, convicted and sentenced. My complaint is that for some people the judicial process just isn't enough. Some people want to see offenders persecuted for the rest of their lives. That is not how a mature society works. I thank God that I don't live in a country like that, and it sickens me that some people really do seem to want to drag us back to the middle ages in that respect.

Re: This one's going down
 

Assuming that was directed at me i`ll try my best to make it clear to you,even though i`m far from being a member of any brigades that may indeed habit CF.

Your quite right.......what he did was way out of proportion.

It`s even easier when you`ve experienced & witnessed the disproportionate actions of your local plods,bent or otherwise.
Their(ok some are) a bigger gang of hoodlums than the so-called criminals themselves at times.

It`s none of my own inadequacies that made me shout so loudly but the thought of it being one of my own 4 girls and the fact that some think it can be brushed off as an accident.

An "error of judgement" ??An error of judgement my backside!It was most probably quite a common thing he did ...until he killed the young lass.
I wonder what other "errors" he was happy to make along the way.


Just "Possibly" arrogant as hell.....well,not tonight he`s not eh.
Walked in there like John Wayne but i`ll bet he`s whimpering like a big wean tonight?Shame on him and shame on anyone else questioning the "justice" of it because of his poor career & his relative poverty?
Wheres the justice for the dead person?

Re: This one's going down
 

Have to agree with this. whether he was a copper/colleague or not. where is the justice for Hayley. some people are too bothered about how John will suffer from her dying.

Re: This one's going down
 

Actually my comments were directed at a mindset, rather than any particular individual. I hadn't even read any of your recent posts in this thread. However, seeing as you identified yourself with what I posted, let's talk about it.

We're off to a poor start here. As you are well aware, my comments about proportionality were aimed at those who want to take the copper's pension
away, they were not a comment on the actions of the copper in question. I truly believe it's possible for two people with opposing views to have a sensible, meaningful discussion about this subject, but indulging in word games isn't the way to go about it.

I'm glad you thought to accept that there are some coppers who aren't disproportionate hoodlums. Regardless, the actions of other police officers are entirely irrelevant in this case. I'm sure, if you consider it rationally, you will agree that the copper who is the subject of this thread is guilty only of his own crimes and not those of (some of) his fellow officers.

Some may think that, but I don't, and seeing as you said you were replying to me, I'm tempted to suggest you're deviating into irrelevant comment again.

Also there's not much point in telling me how many kids you have - it doesn't make you any more qualified to judge the copper who killed the girl. As it happens I have three kids, and I can't imagine how I'd react if he had harmed one of them. But the fact is, he didn't kill one of mine, or one of yours. The judge who sentenced him will have considered the impact on the girl's family as *part* of the overall picture before sentencing.

'Most probably', based on what evidence? Something from the trial we've missed? This is insinuation and speculation.

Now you're just ranting. I hope it gives you whatever it is you feel you need. I'm also very thankful you're not a Crown Court Judge.

---------- Post added at 00:30 ---------- Previous post was at 00:28 ----------

The man whose gross stupidity caused her death is, tonight, serving a jail term for it. There is the justice. If you're trying to make a comment about the length of that sentence, then I politely refer you to the comments I made earlier about proportionality.

Re: This one's going down
 

Theres a reason for that.There are none.
Crap deflection all the same though.;)

Lets not.:sleep:
I`m only still awake at this time trying to get the wee one off to sleep and thats finally mission achieved.

Mabey tomorrow ok.
Let`s get some sleep,those of us who can.

Re: This one's going down
 

Dude do you realise how righteous you come across at times?

He killed someone. That someones family has to live with what he has done. His pension contributions could perhaps be given to her family as some sort of compensation for the loss they have suffered. Possible including funeral expenses??

Awww what a shame he will have to find a new career. I find it amazing that on countless occassions people like you empathizes with the perpetrator rather than the victim shame shame on you

---------- Post added at 09:07 ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 ----------

1 Thank God its not upto you then. You make it sound like you would have let this guy walk that sickens me.

2 He intentionally chased the car at ridiculously high speeds and someone died. He made a choice on what to do so thats intent

Re: This one's going down
 

Actually, the intent was to chase the car and not to kill the girl. It was the negligent way that he went about doing it that resulted in her death as I understand it

Re: This one's going down
 

He still intended to drive the car very fast without any warning so there is intent there. If his foot slipped or the accelerator stuck or his brakes failed it would have been an accident.

Some people seem to care so little about the loss of life and more about the rights of the person who took that life. The girl died because of this mans action not because this man had an accident

Re: This one's going down
 

Yep, there was intent, but the intent was to 'drive the car very fast without any warning' - I doubt very much he got into that car intendind to kill anybody.

His actions were negligent, and directly caused the sad loss of a life - you'll get no arguments from me there.

Re: This one's going down
 

so he deserves what he gets. Its a message to the police that they are accountable for their actions. No one told him to chase the car ,no one told him to travel over 90 without warnings. I hope a lesson is learnt. Although if the police are all like Derek it looks sadly like a lesson may not be learnt as they are to busy feeling sorry for him or worried about their own positions. This guy took a job to protect the innocents well he did a good job of that didnt he

Re: This one's going down
 

I'm not trying to make any comment about the length of time given. infact nobody has mentioned whether it's too long or too short. I think the main thing is that he got locked up and didn't get away with it to a lot of people.

Somebody lost a daughter, a sister, a girlfriend, a grand daughter, and we're arguing about whether there's a possibility that he might have to claim a state pension like a lot of other people do, and be in poverty, other than a private pension later in his life.

Re: This one's going down
 

Not a clue.

I know.

I know.

Ah, here we go. He has done incalculable evil, he deserves what he gets, a poor girl's life is lost forever, her family will hurt for the rest of their lives, etc etc etc ... but giving them some money will be 'some sort of compensation'. Compensation, how exactly? Will the money replace the girl? Or will knowing they have deprived him of it make them feel better? That's the sort of petty vindictiveness I was talking about earlier.

I am unashamed. Nor are those who have campaigned for prison reforms, or legislation like the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which establishes that it is right and proper for someone to serve a sentence for their crime and then be able to start over without getting persecuted for the rest of their life.

Like it or loathe it, we don't live in the sort of country you seem to want to live in. If you really do want that sort of draconian, pre-Victorian criminal justice system, judging from the things you've said here, then you could emigrate to one of the wonderful middle eastern countries where they still practice it. And while you're there, hope and pray that you don't commit the kind of reckless, one-off act of stupidity that lands you in a cesspool of a prison for the rest of your life.

Re: This one's going down
 

and so you prove my point about yourself being righteous . Didnt take long Chris ;)

Re: This one's going down
 

In your own head perhaps. For the benefit of those of us who aren't telepathic, could you spell it out please?

By the way, I think the phrase you're looking for is 'self righteous', which is a criticism. Simply calling someone 'righteous' is quite a nice compliment. I don't expect you were trying to offer a compliment.

Re: This one's going down
 

Does no one ever think that they could be accidentally responsible for someone else's death then? They have never gone above the speed limit, nor been distracted while driving?

Manslaughter exists because it's unfair to equate deliberate murder with the death that arises from recklessness/criminal actions but ones in which a death was not intended. Now this guy was way above the speed limit but the law is the same.

Imagine your late for work, an important meeting, and on a road which looks clear, straight and safe but is 30 miles an hour. Your in a rush, 30mph seems stupidly slow so you speed up to 40. Then bam, you hit someone. Do you really deserve 20 years in prison, and all your money taken from you?

It's doesn't make it ok, it's not an excuse. However surely the punishment should be proportionate to the situation. It was an accident which occurred because you broke another law, you certainly did not intend to kill someone.

Re: This one's going down
 

Really?i must have been extra tired then because i thought your comments on "proportion" and
the usage of "pitchforks & carts" were a direct response to my own "getting whats coming to him" remark.
More than just my "word games" in play it would seem.Either that or i was extra tired this morning.
On the subject of "proportion" though do you really believe that the few months he`s going to spend locked up is
proportional in relation to what he did?

On the one hand you believe others should keep things proportionate but on the other you want the poor copper
to keep his pension on top of the poxy few months he`ll spend in some cushy open jail.
Are you really quite sure about that "sensible" part??

Your quite right here.It`s just a pity some would rather negate what he did and bleat about his pension rights instead.

You know,theres a reason i dont typically get involved in these types of thread.
Just why do i need to be qualified to voice an opinion remind me?It`s the internet and not the Old Bailey in case you hadn`t noticed.
Listen,if the judge had considered the family one bit then the reckless copper wouldn`t be out in the short time he will be,not that
any amount of time will bring her back of course.
And if anyone else considered the family they wouldn`t be bleating about the idiot in questions pension.

Sorry M`lud,i would respectfully refer you to the above.
Still though,evidence aside,because it was/is just an opinion after all...you really believe that was the very first time he decided to
commit this reckless crime?How unlucky must he be then.How tough it must be for that poor first offender.



I`d have gave him at least ten years for his troubles,knowing he`d be out in 5.If not tagged even earlier.Plus the family would have had his pension if i`d had my way.
If you believe 3 years...(12-18 months in reality) is sufficient though then that`s entirely your right and if you believe
he should at least have his pension then that too is your right but i would then refer you back to earlier comments i made
and again ask you if your quite sure about the "sensible parts"

EDIT:Accidental??
If i killed some poor lass while chasing someone at 90Mph in a 30Mph zone then i`d expect 10 years for my troubles.
I`d probably get it too.

Re: This one's going down
 

I so have to bow down to your greater intellect with my lesser grammar

You argue your point no differently to me. You are no more flexible with your beliefs than I am. You hold on to what you think no matter what anyone else says. You argue in this case for the perp I am backing the victim and her family. We are opposing sides of the same argument.

You called those like me self righteous therefore as you are doing exactly the same as me but from an opposite side what does that make you??

I openly admit that I am bigoted when it comes to my view. Your lack of tolerance for my view and devotion to your view makes you what??

Of course you will say you disagree with what I say but then we will just start the opposing sides thing again

Re: This one's going down
 

You're entitled to your opinion, and you're right this is a discussion forum, not the Old Bailey. But while you're moaning about the way I phrase my posts, bear in mind that it cuts both ways. Perhaps you think my approach to the subject is too clinical. Well maybe it is, but on the other hand I think your approach is based in bile, anger and a desire for vengeance, not justice. Thankfully our criminal justice system doesn't work like that. If you think that's wrong, then by all means go on saying so, but please don't be surprised if some of us strongly disagree with you.

Re: This one's going down
 

I pointed out occassions when its an accident ie brakes failing. You say about speeding . If you kill someone whilst speeding and knowinging speeding then that is a contribution to the "accident" you make the decision to speed its no accident that you are speeding so how are the results an accident?

I nearly killed someone speeding so I do have experience of this. I was speeding on a motorcycle and hit a moped nearly killing the woman riding it.
Was it an accident? NO it was my fault as I chose to go to fast. Do I feel guilty ? YES do I drive now because of my feelings of guilt NO.

So there you go. Its only an accident if the cause is something you have no control over imo

Re: This one's going down
 

Chris is not arguing for the perpetrator. He is just not arguing exclusively from the victim's family's point of view. He is arguing from a neutral standpoint. Justice has to be done, and it has been but it should be proportionate to the crime. It may not seem so when you look at it purely from the point of view of someone losing their life but it's important to remember he did not mean to cause a death.

Re: This one's going down
 

you are funny Chris ;) you often pull people up on how they post. You did it me a few posts ago cuz I missed out a word ;) and you think you aint self righteous lmao

---------- Post added at 10:48 ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 ----------

I agree he did not mean to cause the death but he was the cause of the death. I did not mean to nearly kill that woman but I nearly did it was my fault

Re: This one's going down
 

No. If your driving at normal speed, and the brakes fail (the car with a recent MOT, you with insurance and a valid driving licence) then it's a innocent accident and you don't go to prison. Manslaughter does not apply because you were not at fault in any way.

However if you are speeding (ignorance is not an excuse btw) and you hit someone then yes, you made a decision (or were negligent, it's your responsibility to check your driving within the limit) and broke the law. This results in a death then YES you deserve to go to jail but should your punishment be the same as someone who went out intending to murder someone? No.

Re: This one's going down
 

Which is what I said. I posted a few instances a few posts back what an accident would be and what imo isnt

Damien people have been arguing in this thread that he should not have been sent down. Derek has implied the same.

You see it on this forum. The guy the other xmas whose daughter died because he let her ride a quad home. People here argued for him whats that all about. People here argue that its perfectly ok for the Mccans to leave little kids alone again whats that all about? I find it crazy that people blatantly guilty of something are defended by people here like there could possibly be justification for any of these examples

Re: This one's going down
 

I like your strongly worded posts. They challenge my views and make me think. Just because I don't roll over in public or do a one-eighty in my next post doesn't mean I'm not considering what you have said.

I've just deleted a long discussion about the meaning of 'self righteous' - you're right, there's no point batting words back and forth from opposing sides, it's not going to get us anywhere. Besides, we're meant to be going out today and I'm already in trouble for sitting here for the last half hour ... :disturbd:

Re: This one's going down
 

Yes and no one is arguing you should not be brought to justice for being criminally responsible for someone's death even if that was not at all your intention. Just that the punishment should reflect the crime, it should not equate to murder. Thankfully we have the law of manslaughter which insures the punishment reflects the true seriousness of the crime as well as your danger to the public.

Re: This one's going down
 

I do not disagree.

I was arguing that I feel he should not get his pension maybe that view isnt correct as it is contribution but I feel he let the police force down and he let the public down .I know he should have hell inside maybe thats enough but I feel him being allowed to walk away with his pension is some kinda reward. Similar to the guy from the RBS who let down his customers and walked with his pension something a lot thought was wrong

Re: This one's going down
 

It's not a reward, it's what he earned as a result of his career until the point he is booted out and sent to jail. I don't see why he should lose his pension as well.

Re: This one's going down
 

That is a stupid argument really. nobody that kills on the road meant to kill anyone either.

Re: This one's going down
 

As I say I can see that side of this also but I just want him to suffer sorry but I do

Re: This one's going down
 

Are you talking about killing people on the road, or killing people in general?

Re: This one's going down
 

He's talking about killing in general.

Re: This one's going down
 

So what's he going on about when he says ?

He got 3 years, intentionally killing someone usually means a lot more.
And you don't automaticaly lose a private pension for killing someone intentionally, or unintentionally.

Re: This one's going down
 

Link

Link2

Link3

Link4

Link5

Re: This one's going down
 

You're being pedantic as usual.
only one of them is in the UK. and two of them are the same to make the numbers up :D

Re: This one's going down
 

Mmmmmm, new definition of pedantic I hadn't come across before - correcting factual inaccuracies. ;)

Thanks for pointing out the duplicate link, Gareth - now fixed.

Re: This one's going down
 

Pedantic is when you are overly concerned with minute details. your definition isn't in the dictionary ;)
and the name's Gary, not Gareth.

Re: This one's going down
 

Getting it completely wrong is not a "minute detail", imho.:D Your statement was factually incorrect.

re the name, sorry about that - you just strike me as a bit of a Gareth. ;)

Re: This one's going down
 

So he did not mean to cause Hayley's death when he sped up to 94mph and did not put on his siren or lights to possibly give some advance warning as he was to INTENT on catching the "criminal" no it was never an accident as he drove with intent at speed and in doing so killed a 16 year old child.

He did not cause a death he KILLED someone with his weapon of choice his Police car.

Re: This one's going down
 

The boy's name Gareth \g(a)-re-th\ is pronounced GARE-eth. It is of Welsh origin, and its meaning is "gentle". Sir Gareth, noted for his modesty and bravery, was a knight of King Arthur's Round Table.


thats so nice :ghugs:

Re: This one's going down
 

Why so pedantic? ;)

Re: This one's going down
 

I am not taking the bait, Richard :D

Re: This one's going down
 

Because we are also contributing towards it, including his victims family perhaps?

---------- Post added at 01:20 ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 ----------

Because he used an anomaly to keep it, by resigning he took himself out of disciplinary action being taken, I don't think it's right and I don't think his resignation should have been accepted.

Re: This one's going down
 

He will be out in around 18 month's and then have the rest of his life to look forward to but Hayley ( remember the person he killed ) will not have the rest of her life to look forward to, so yes he should not have been allowed to resign and keep his pension as a reward.

If he did that to my child I would hunt him down and ensure he could never drive again, make of that what you will.

Re: This one's going down
 

That would be moider! :D

Re: This one's going down
 

No as I would want him to feel the guilt forever but ensure that he never drove again.

Re: This one's going down
 

i'm sure he does feel the guilt and will feel it for a long time to to come ,
it was an accident ,preventable?that's a matter of opinion,but all the same an accident as are most of the road deaths in this country every year
would it have made a difference if his sirens had been on?possibly,possibly not but the fact remains that he is in jail his life is ruined because of a lack of judgement
As for losing his pension,no he shouldn't why should he? he has contributed to it and deserves to keep it or get the money back he has paid in
moldover and a few others seem to wan't this man hung,drawn and quatered well in my opinion that seems to be the easy argument to take and shows a lack of understanding of how people think or behave
I am sure that hayley's parents will get a handsome payout from the force(rightly so)but do they accept part of the responsibility,will other parents look at the way there children are behaving late at night and accept some responsibility when there children are getting hurt
i don't think so and untill that happens then society is going to continue to find scapegoat's for our failings as i think has happened in this case

Re: This one's going down
 

Accidents do not happen when you are hit at 94MPH by a car on surburban streets death does!

Please stop trying to say that this was an accident as this was someone that killed a person with a weapon, which in this case was a Police car driven by a Policeman who was so INTENT on catching his "supposed criminal" that he ignored all speed limits and failed to give any warning by use of his Blue lights and Siren.

I personally am sickened by people who keep trying to say this was an accident and that the nice policeman was only doing his job, if he had done his job properly then possibly Hayley would not have been killed by him.

Re: This one's going down
 

quote
"if he had done his job properly then possibly Hayley would not have been killed by him."

and possibly if her parents had done there job properly then hayley would have been in the house at that time of night

An accident is a specific, identifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, without apparent or deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative probabilistic outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence
here's the dictionary definition of accident i believe all the criteria have been met in this case

Re: This one's going down
 

Always blame the victim because it was a policeman, good job the jury decided otherwise.

So it was an Accident even though he was going at 94MPH on a suburban road, you amaze me by even trying to use the above quote.

When you kill someone it is down to a deliberate ac,t which in this case was him speeding and therefore cannot be classed as an accident.

I would re read your posted quote and maybe you will realise that it does not in any shape or form fit the criteria to ever be classed as an accident.

Then again I doubt it.

Re: This one's going down
 

if you read my post properly you will see i have'nt "blamed the victim"i am saying that other people are to blame aswell they must share responsibility
and yes it was an accident or do you think it was murder because that's the only other option you have left yourself

Re: This one's going down
 

This officer did make a horrendous error of judgment. It was not murder, he didn't deliberately set out to kill. However, he knew that a motor car is a lethal weapon, &, as such, should have been treated with respect. He failed on every count in this instance. Morally & professionally. He mis used the vehicle & killed a girl, for that he is paying the penalty.

As much as I hate to say this, but the pension he has paid into should be frozen, or transferred to a private pension fund. He has paid into the pot & should be entitled to draw his money back.

I agree the money would be better off going to the victims family, but thats not possible. Criminal injuries takes care of that side of matters.

I feel no sorrow for this officer, driving at 94 in a 30 area was not, & never will be acceptable. It is, quite simply, too dangerous. In my own opinion, in those circumstances, & at that speed, no driver has the reactions, & no vehicle has the stopping power, to prevent a collision.

This incident was avoidable.

Re: This one's going down
 

I dont know whether to laugh or spout some bile:rolleyes:
The more i hear this kind of gumph the more i hope this guy does have an "accident" in jail.

So,by your reasoning,if one of my girls suddenly decided to skip school tomorrow(which none of them have ever done thankfully) and then god forbid some beast dragged her into a bush somewhere that would be my fault as well as my girls??

I wonder what you feel about all the prostitutes who get raped & murdered?
Is that their fault too??

Re: This one's going down
 

i'm talking about this case specifically
don't know what prostitites have been mentioned or why you would bring any up in this thread

Re: This one's going down
 

I wasn`t being specific and just used them as an example.
You weren`t being specific about this case either when talking about "other parents & their responsibilities" so i can only repeat what i asked you above...

Re: This one's going down
 

ok then let's your game

one of your girls has just been abducted ,the suspect is spotted 2miles away ,a police car races(at 94 mph) to the scene not using his lights and sirens so as not to alert the suspect and on the way knocks down a pedestrian and kills her is this an accident or would the officer in question be pillaried and locked up

and in this specific case (because i know what the girl was upto)i do think the parents should shoulder some responsibility for allowing her to hang about a park late at night with a load of other kids on a school night
her own actions contributed to the accident just as much as the officers

and incase your wondering about my sources for my info it is my oldest son who goes to school with the kids

and as for prostitutes who get murdered not only is that a ridiculous example to use in the context of this thread but since you ask i do think they have a choice but that is a subject for another discussion

Re: This one's going down
 

If he was doing 94MPH in a 30MPH zone,with no lights or sirens at night,like the one in question then yes he`s going to jail.Besides,i`d want him to have his lights & sirens blaring to frighten the bugger off my lass at the earliest opportunity...wouldn`t you?

It shouldn`t matter if the family are your typical Jeremy Kyle fodder.
Coppers should not be driving at nigh on 100Mph in built up areas with 30Mph speed limits without lights or sirens blaring and i`d go as far to say not even with them blaring.

Kids,especially 16Yr old young adults do the things that they do,always have and always will.....
Whether the family are upstanding members of the community or whether their complete and utter ******s it`s not their fault when members of our Law Enforcement break the laws in such a reckless manner themselves.

What info?

No more ridiculous than calling it an accident that the parents themselves are partially responsible for though eh?

EDIT:Sorry about swear filter.I didn`t think somebody who tossed something was a swear word.

Re: This one's going down
 

no it's not imo
i personally wouldn't call the family "people who throw things"... just misguided in there belief that a 16yr old should be allowed to drink in a park untill the early hours

Re: This one's going down
 

Don't blame the parents. it's just cheap.
If she was 18 you'd be telling us to blame herself.
94mph on a 30mph in stealth mode in the dark is what's to blame nobody and nothing else.

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:55 ----------

If Hayley was tucked up in bed, he would have probably hit somebody else instead. then you'd have to come up with some other excuse as to why it was that persons fault.

You have everything covered already. aged 0-18 it's the parents fault. 18 - 112 it's probably their own fault.

Re: This one's going down
 

Ah nice to see the usual feelings of goodwill and peace are still about on CF. Oh...

Broken legs and nooses all round for some people. I suppose all people convicted of Death by Dangerous Driving automatically get a bullet in the kneecaps or back of the head in Zingle and Moldova land? Or just the ones in white hats? :rolleyes:

I suppose that would all depend on if you had a reason to drive at 90MPH which despite what some people want is sometimes necessary to do and is sometimes safe enough to justify doing it.

Have a good look at the video from inside the car.

I'll even go through the salient points for you.

0 - 49 Seconds - Car is travelling at around 30MPH, the driver isn't hooring it about for a laugh. He gets up to just over 40MPH for a few seconds.

50 seconds - A car goes past him in the opposite direction. It is read by his ANPR camera and alerts him by means of a noise and he (I imagine) looks down at the screen to see the vehicle is wanted in connection with a crime.

51 - 72 seconds - Still going at about 30MPH (probably reading why the vehicle is wanted and deciding if it is acceptable to pursue it he finds a spot to turn his vehicle

73 - 96 seconds - He accelerates hard away up a hill to catch the vehicle. In these 20 seconds or so he has to (he is alone in the car so no neighbour to do it

• Continue driving
• Make ground on the vehicle
• Inform his control room he is pursuing a vehicle
• Decide whether to activate his lights and sirens which may alert the vehicle (still unsighted) he is after it any allow it to dive down a side street

Those 20 seconds has cost a girl her life but he wasn't out with the express intention of killing someone and his driving was in no way dangerous or unprofessional till that point.
As well as him losing his job he'll probably never drive again and he *will* feel remorse for the death, far more than half the people who kill when driving.

The other thing which I've noticed is the only other people in the entire video are at the very end when they were crossing the road. In the previous footage not one other pedestrian was seen and bearing in mind it was after 11 its possible that might have had an impact onto whether or not he activated his warning equipment.

But hey why let that get in the way of a decent witchunt. :mad:

Re: This one's going down
 

Oh give it a rest.

Re: This one's going down
 

We`ll also have to agree to disagree then it seems martyh.
You believe it was a terrible accident that is partially the parents fault and i believe the complete opposite.I dont believe it could ever be called an accident and i certainly dont believe the offender was given long enough.
The parents being in any way responsible for this death by dangerous driving is,again,not something i cant agree with either i`m afraid.

To me,a policeman driving his vehicle the way this guy did,where he did,is just as irresponsible as someone with a shotgun license walking down the same road letting shots off willy nilly and hoping they dont hit someone.Same principle different weapon.

Re: This one's going down
 

This was not an accident. It was death by dangerous driving. No advanced driver would say otherwise. The courts ruled it so, & sent the driver to prison.

End of.

Re: This one's going down
 

He was doing approx 90mph at the brow of that hill, and you actually see 2 people (1 being Hayley) already starting to cross the road.
if he had his lights and sirens on she wouldn't have already started crossing the road.

He should know that road, and will know that the hill is a 'blind' spot. he'll know that there's a junction bang after that hill.

Re: This one's going down
 

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know for sure.

(Some people have the amazing ability to mistake a fully battenburged up Police car for a taxi or something that miraculously won't hit them as they wander across a road at night. Must be something in the cheap alco-pops that affects the eyesight)

Re: This one's going down
 

Yep, whatever Derek.

Re: This one's going down
 

Extremely amazing ability that would have been,especially to have seen it coming from over that hill.

Re: This one's going down
 

that's your view and i respect and agree with it upto a point
there was a case about 4yrs ago on stamfordham rd (about a mile and a half away from said incident)were a 7yr old was killed by a speeding motorist he got 5yrs and a 5yr ban, now he deservered to be tried on murder what he did was totally unnessesary, he was just late for his tea

Re: This one's going down
 

The post below says it all and he has trained advanced police drivers.


As I said accidents do not happen at 94MPH on suburban streets it was not murder I agree but manslaughter, but not accidental.

You did not blame Hayley ( the victims name ) but her parents, for her being out late which still does not detract from the fact that he killed her while driving at 94MPH so at that speed it was never an accident by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: This one's going down
 

agree about the manslaughter ,but i still believe there should be a degree of sympathy for the officer because despite a lack of judgement he did not mean to kill anyone and i'm sure regrets his actions
there are a lot more people out there deserving of our hate than him

Re: This one's going down
 

I wasn't referring especially to this case (although I don't think hearing is blocked by hills) but in general people think the lights and sirens are enough to make everyone behave in a sensible manner and I can assure you that they don't.

Re: This one's going down
 

Yes Martyh. can we sign anything to get him out of prison and back to his life quicker?

---------- Post added at 21:58 ---------- Previous post was at 21:55 ----------

You should have been his defence lawyer. you could have argued that sirens and lights make some people behave in a non sensible manner :D

Re: This one's going down
 

[QUOTE=Gary L;34787873]Yes Martyh. can we sign anything to get him out of prison and back to his life quicker?

not biting

Re: This one's going down
 

I am glad to see that you are not refering to this as an accident any more:)

I do not hate him as I do not know him, but I hate what he did and know how angry I would be if it was my daughter.

Re: This one's going down
 

i thought manslaughter meant unintentional death which could mean accident ;)but i take your point

i also would feel different if it was a member of my family or a close friend but the fact is it wasn't so i have no idea how they feel i can only guess how i would react and god willing i will never find out so i can look at this from both sides and feel that the sentence he got was about right
the other case i mentioned in an earlier post i feel the driver should have got a much heavier sentence(possibly 25yrs)but he got 5yrs for what i concider a much more serious crime