This one's going down

If he was 'reckless' he will be found guilty of reckless driving.

And no, I disagree that you can judge him on anything based on incomplete evidence, especially when the only evidence so far presented is that which is intended to make him look as guilty as possible.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

If he was 'reckless' he will be found guilty of reckless driving.

And no, I disagree that you can judge him on anything based on incomplete evidence, especially when the only evidence so far presented is that which is intended to make him look as guilty as possible.

Reckless means it was unsafe? he's being prosecuted for dangerous driving already. and the evidence given is the evidence he has stated.

If he's in the witness box, then the defence case has commenced. That means we're closer to finding out the full facts.

I said 'reckless' because that's the word Zingle used. I'm neither charging, prosecuting nor defending the man. I'm simply waiting to hear all the facts.

Originally Posted by Chris

If he was 'reckless' he will be found guilty of reckless driving.

And no, I disagree that you can judge him on anything based on incomplete evidence, especially when the only evidence so far presented is that which is intended to make him look as guilty as possible.

he admits the speed he admits no siren thats complete evidence on them facts?

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

If he's in the witness box, then the defence case has commenced. That means we're closer to finding out the full facts.

I said 'reckless' because that's the word Zingle used. I'm neither charging, prosecuting nor defending the man. I'm simply waiting to hear all the facts.

no you are not you are arguing with us on the subject

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

he admits the speed he admits no siren thats complete evidence on them facts?

No. Complete evidence means all the evidence presented by the prosecution, all the evidence presented by the defence, closing speeches from both sides then summing up by the judge.

no that evidence is complete as he admits it. The rest will be reasons excuses and mitigating circumstances

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

no that evidence is complete as he admits it. The rest will be reasons excuses and mitigating circumstances

Mitigation is part of the evidence. You can't just go redefining the English language to suit your point Zing.

[SMG]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

no that evidence is complete as he admits it. The rest will be reasons excuses and mitigating circumstances

I would agree with that. Providing the officer is class 1, & I have not yet seen any evidence he is, he will no doubt be relying on his driving skills as an excuse for this incident. Should he prove he was driving in a controlled manner, that would eliminate part of the prosecutions case.

Personally, I consider his actions to be reckless & dangerous.

Some seem to think the pedestrian was at fault & should have taken more care crossing. It is unreasonable to assume any vehicle would be traveling at such speed in a 30 zone. Seeing this vehicles headlights some distance away she would, quite reasonably, had assumed she had time to cross, I do wonder what the "chased vehicles" offence was for this officer to drive at this ridiculous speed.

Originally Posted by Chris

Mitigation is part of the evidence. You can't just go redefining the English language to suit your point Zing.

I am not I am making judgements on what he admits I think thats reasonable

BTW to mitigate is to lesson to make less severe . He killed the girl cant really get much worse than that

" the girl is dead but its not so bad I really really wanted to catch the baddie "

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

actualy if he can show it could have hindered his duty there is no speed limit for a police office see "Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984" link here http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...tDocId=2223981

as the car was fitted with ANPR i would suspect hes a class one driver

The quotes below are taken from this article and the bottom quote says it all.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north...03-23285471/2/

The decision to keep the Volvo’s alarms and warning lights off only increased the threat the officer posed, the jury was told.
And the way Dougal “hunted� the Megane even though he had no information about the reason it had triggered the computer system was out of proportion.

“Put simply, our case is that his driving at such extreme speed at night in a residential area was highly dangerous,� he told the jury. “It was even more dangerous to do so without using any special warning devices.�

The jury heard the information that triggered the computer “hit� about the Megane was finally found to be out of date. Its driver, a Czech national with two relatives as passengers, had been driving normally and within the 30mph limit, even seeing the dreadful collision in his rear view mirror.

Originally Posted by Moldova

The quotes below are taken from this article and the bottom quote says it all.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north...03-23285471/2/

The decision to keep the Volvo’s alarms and warning lights off only increased the threat the officer posed, the jury was told.
And the way Dougal “hunted� the Megane even though he had no information about the reason it had triggered the computer system was out of proportion.

“Put simply, our case is that his driving at such extreme speed at night in a residential area was highly dangerous,� he told the jury. “It was even more dangerous to do so without using any special warning devices.�

The jury heard the information that triggered the computer “hit� about the Megane was finally found to be out of date. Its driver, a Czech national with two relatives as passengers, had been driving normally and within the 30mph limit, even seeing the dreadful collision in his rear view mirror.

No, it does not say it all. It says the prosecution's case. So it says about half of it.

For goodness sake, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chris

No, it does not say it all. It says the prosecution's case. So it says about half of it.

For goodness sake, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

I am waiting for the defence case as that will be very interesting, but the above does leave a lot of questions as to why he acted in such a dangerous way.

I agree completely, it begs loads of questions - but I think we need to get the answers to those questions before passing judgement. Some people posting in this thread have been content to pass judgement ever since the first report of the case appeared, and that was before the prosecution had even finished presenting.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

I agree completely, it begs loads of questions - but I think we need to get the answers to those questions before passing judgement. Some people posting in this thread have been content to pass judgement ever since the first report of the case appeared, and that was before the prosecution had even finished presenting.

Chris you have to understand that some of us just know that someone got hit and died as a result of a car driving at 90mph on a 30mph road. whatever the defence is. one person died and speed was the factor.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Chris you have to understand that some of us just know that someone got hit and died as a result of a car driving at 90mph on a 30mph road. whatever the defence is. one person died and speed was the factor.

I understand that those facts are all anyone knew at the time this thread began. What you need to understand is that for justice to be done, you need to know more than that before you pass judgement.