This one's going down - Page 18

Gary L · 02-05-2009, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

**Chris** · 02-05-2009, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

He's talking about killing in general.

Gary L · 02-05-2009, 10:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

He's talking about killing in general.

So what's he going on about when he says

Quote:

but should your punishment be the same as someone who went out intending to murder someone? No

?

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.

**Hugh** · 02-05-2009, 10:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

Link

Link2

Link3

Link4

Link5

Gary L · 02-05-2009, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Link

Link2

Link3

Link4

Link5

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

**Hugh** · 02-05-2009, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

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

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

Gary L · 02-05-2009, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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

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

Pedantic is when you are overly concerned with minute details. your definition isn't in the dictionary

and the name's Gary, not Gareth.

**Hugh** · 02-05-2009, 11:43

Getting it completely wrong is not a "minute detail", imho.

Your statement was factually incorrect.

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

Peter_ · 02-05-2009, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

papa smurf · 02-05-2009, 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Getting it completely wrong is not a "minute detail", imho.

Your statement was factually incorrect.

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

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

Mr Angry · 02-05-2009, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

...and the name's Gary, not Gareth.

Why so pedantic?

Gary L · 02-05-2009, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Getting it completely wrong is not a "minute detail", imho.

Your statement was factually incorrect.

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

I am not taking the bait, Richard

TheDaddy · 03-05-2009, 00:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Peter_ · 03-05-2009, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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.

Gary L · 03-05-2009, 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

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.

That would be moider!