This one's going down

[NoKnowledge]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

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

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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Gary L

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

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

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

Some of the 'highlights' of his case

Originally Posted by BBC

Dean Stewart, from Paisley, had faced charges of raping three women and indecently assaulting another six.
.
"It is difficult to believe that a serving police officer could behave in such a way, particularly when he was in uniform and in the course of his duties.
.
He added: "His police uniform, his car, his power and authority, gave him the perfect cover to carry out a series of sexual assaults."

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Derek S

He has been convicted in a court of law so yes he is a criminal.

At least we can agree on one thing then.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

not for the person who is dead there isnt

[Derek]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

not for the person who is dead there isnt

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

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

not for the person who is dead there isnt

There's no answer to that.

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Gary L

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

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

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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

[xpod]

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

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.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by xpod

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.

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

[xpod]

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

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.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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.

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.

[Gary L]

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.