My foot slipped - Page 2

bdav · 17-06-2005, 22:32

Why wont this country pull its finger out and take a hard stance on this kind of thing? I bet he gets (max) 10 years.

Raistlin · 17-06-2005, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdav

Why wont this country pull its finger out and take a hard stance on this kind of thing? I bet he gets (max) 10 years.

I'll bet you next month's pay that he won't even get 5

Chimaera · 17-06-2005, 22:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdav

Why wont this country pull its finger out and take a hard stance on this kind of thing? I bet he gets (max) 10 years.

10 years? I'll be surprised if he gets 5 - the defence being that he didn't intend to kill or injure anyone when he got in the car, so it's not a pre-meditated act like going after someone with a gun.

Roy MM · 17-06-2005, 22:42

Just another solicitor clutching at mental issues to try and gain some salvation for a guilty client, happens far to often these days IMO.

bdav · 17-06-2005, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera

10 years? I'll be surprised if he gets 5 - the defence being that he didn't intend to kill or injure anyone when he got in the car, so it's not a pre-meditated act.

But is it not? If he is not licensed to drive, is it not (in a way) a pre-meditated act? He knows that, for probably a good reason (doesnt know how to drive/ been banned), he is not legaly allowed to drive, so it is his negligence when he got in that car that killed the child?

Raistlin · 17-06-2005, 22:45

He intended to drive, he did not intend to kill anybody - although it could be argued that he knew that was a risk.

Chimaera · 17-06-2005, 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdav

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera

10 years? I'll be surprised if he gets 5 - the defence being that he didn't intend to kill or injure anyone when he got in the car, so it's not a pre-meditated act.

But is it not? If he is not licensed to drive, is it not (in a way) a pre-meditated act? He knows that, for probably a good reason (doesnt know how to drive/ been banned), he is not legaly allowed to drive, so it is his negligence when he got in that car that killed the child?

Absolutely, I agree entirely with what you are saying - I'm just saying it from a legal standpoint, no doubt what his solicitor will use in his defence

Roy MM · 17-06-2005, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

He intended to drive, he did not intend to kill anybody - although it could be argued that he knew that was a risk.

On that reasoning, "he fired the gun but did not think the bullet would hit anyone"

Raistlin · 17-06-2005, 22:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy MM

On that reasoning, "he fired the gun but did not think the bullet would hit anyone"

Depends where he was pointing it, and whether there are grounds to believe that he could reasonably have expected it to hit someone.

17-06-2005, 22:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera

10 years? I'll be surprised if he gets 5 - the defence being that he didn't intend to kill or injure anyone when he got in the car, so it's not a pre-meditated act like going after someone with a gun.

yes, one view, another is that by knowingly operating a vehicle without a suitable licence you are in unauthorised possession of a weapon just as deadly as a gun.

sorry for the melodrama, it wasn't aimed at Chimeara especially, but hers was a good post to hang it on, just my

, though.

Roy MM · 17-06-2005, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Depends where he was pointing it, and whether there are grounds to believe that he could reasonably have expected it to hit someone.

But when he was parking the car he could not have reasonably expected to hit anybody.

Raistlin · 17-06-2005, 23:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy MM

But when he was parking the car he could not have reasonably expected to hit anybody.

Which is along the same lines as my post #21.....

He intended to drive, his intention (when he set out in the car) wasn't to kill someone. Therefore it can't be pre-meditated man-slaughter/murder.....

Chimaera · 17-06-2005, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by homealone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera

10 years? I'll be surprised if he gets 5 - the defence being that he didn't intend to kill or injure anyone when he got in the car, so it's not a pre-meditated act like going after someone with a gun.

yes, one view, another is that by knowingly operating a vehicle without a suitable licence you are in unauthorised possession of a weapon just as deadly as a gun.

sorry for the melodrama, it wasn't aimed at Chimeara especially, but hers was a good post to hang it on, just my

, though.

Crikey Homer - that's what my driving test examiner said when I had passed my driving test - to be careful now I had passed as a car was as dangerous as a gun!
(I know you weren't aiming it at me!

)

bdav · 17-06-2005, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Depends where he was pointing it, and whether there are grounds to believe that he could reasonably have expected it to hit someone.

Thats a silly analogy - Your aiming a gun, you drop it - nothing happens.
Your driving a car, you let go - you generaly hit someone/thing.

Raistlin · 17-06-2005, 23:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdav

Thats a silly analogy - Your aiming a gun, you drop it - nothing happens.
Your driving a car, you let go - you generaly hit someone/thing.

But Roy wasn't suggesting that he had dropped the gun. He was suggesting that "he fired the gun but did not think the bullet would hit anyone".

My analogy is built on that.

I drive my car, but I don't expect to hit anyone. I do realise that it is a risk. If I point my car at a crowd of people and then drive it I am likely to hit someone.

The difference comes down to intent. If I point a gun into the air it is (highly) unlikely that I will hit anybody, however if I point my gun into a crowd it is (highly) likely that I will hit someone.

In Roy's example, if I were to say "sorry, I didn't think it would hit anybody" after deliberatly driving/aiming towards a crowd of people then I would obviously be talking crap.

However (dragging this back on topic) the learner driver was parking his car, he did not expect to hit someone, he was not parking it intentionally to hit someone, therefore it isn't pre-meditated. The only pre-meditated acts were: driving the car not in accordance with the licencing conditions, driving whilst uninsured.

He is certainly not going to be found guilty of pre-meditated murder.