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.

[xpod]

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

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?

I truly believe it's possible for two people with opposing views to have a sensible, meaningful
discussion about this subject

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??

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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

Originally Posted by xpod

<major snippage>

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

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 ----------

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.

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

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

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 ...

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

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.

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

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

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.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Damien

but it's important to remember he did not mean to cause a death.

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

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.

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