Car deliberately used as a weapon.

BrianW wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:00 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as
a weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. Why don't you go away and actually read the
Criminal Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?-

Don't be silly, Norman. Why on earth would Duhg break the habit of a
lifetime and actually learn some facts? If he did as you say, he
might end his incredible record of being 100% wrong, 100% of the time,
and that would never do, would it?

I do apologise. It was wrong of me to suggest it.

On Apr 7, 7:33*am, Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:07*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:



Doug wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:03 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years. How
often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?

You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?

So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought if
it was actually dangerous.

Speed limits are specific to using a road

No they're not, you see. *As I think you very well know, speed limits do not
apply to cyclists. *They apply specifically to motorists.

Speed limits only apply to roads.

So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when a
suitable one already exists", which is just what you were criticising. *So,
why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Who said they should be and how is it relevant?

The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate and where the use of a car as a weapon would be
recognised instead of being ignored.

Doug, even if abolishing "causing death by dangerous driving", in
favour of manslaughter, didn't lead to an increase in killer drivers
walking away scot-free (which it would, as has been explained to you
many times), it is by no means clear that they'd be given longer
sentences if convicted of manslaughter. See, for example:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s..._manslaughter/

"Appellant, having been indicted for murder, pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. Within a block of flats, the deceased challenged the
appellant to fight. Having pulled the deceased down some stairs, the
appellant kicked or stamped on him several times. The deceased died a
month later due to severing of the end of the pancreas caused by a
single blow to the abdomen crushing the pancreas against the spine.
Sentence of six years imprisonment reduced to four years."

"R v Furby [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 8 - guideline case
Appellant and deceased were good friends. For a reason that the court
regarded as an explicable reaction, the appellant struck a single
punch of moderate force to the right cheek, the deceased collapsed to
the ground and died due to a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Appellant of
good character. Sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment. Case law
cited confirms that if there are aggravating circumstances the
sentence could be as high as four years."

"Attorney General's Reference (No.111 of 2006) (Hussain) [2007]
Cr.App.R.(S.) 26 - guideline case
The offender, a taxi driver, was flagged down by the deceased and his
friends during the early hours of the morning. The deceased walked in
front of the vehicle, placed his hands on the bonnet and moved
backwards with the taxi, which continued to move forward slowly. The
deceased lost his footing and fell underneath the vehicle. The
offender panicked and accelerated, dragging the deceased for about a
mile before he became dislodged at a roundabout. He then drove away
without stopping. The offender felt someone under his car and heard
screams. Guilty plea to manslaughter accepted on the second day of
murder trial. The offender was aged 44 and of previous good
character. The Court of Appeal observed that the range of first
instance decisions for similar offences suggested a range between four
and seven years imprisonment. Sentence increased to five years
imprisonment bearing in mind double jeopardy."

Note that the above are not cherry-picked examples, they are cited in
the CPS's sentencing guidelines.

On 07/04/2011 07:39, Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

You have just shot yourself in the foot again idiot.

I could quite legally carry those items in the course of my trade
because I have no intent of using them as offensive weapons.

Just like 99% of drivers have no intention of using a car as an
offensive weapon.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public and in a
stop and search most of those on your list would be considered highly
suspicious by the police.

Wrong again. I can quite legally carry many types of knife in a public
place.

When the police pull a car, however, they do
not think "Ah! This car looks highly suspicious and could be used to
ram someone".

No. Because they are not terminally ****ing stupid like you are.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 07/04/2011 07:39, Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Use a car (or a bike) to attack someone with and it will be treated by the
justice system as a weapon.

On Apr 7, 8:54*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 9:07 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years.
How often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?

You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?

So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought
if it was actually dangerous.

Speed limits are specific to using a road

No they're not, you see. As I think you very well know, speed limits
do not apply to cyclists. They apply specifically to motorists.

Speed limits only apply to roads.

So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when
a suitable one already exists", which is just what you were
criticising. So, why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Who said they should be and how is it relevant?

The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate

So too, exactly, is speeding as an offence. *Don't you think therefore that
all speed limits should be abolished as being 'soft'. *Other existing laws
like those against murder or GBH are quite adequate surely?

Stop evading the point.

Your point is nuts. If speed limits are soft then they need to be
enforced more, not abolished. Obviously, if a driver is speeding close
to people they are putting lives at risk and a suitable law should be
applied, something along the lines of...

""Terrorizing" generally means to cause alarm, fright, or dread in
another person or inducing apprehension of violence from a hostile or
threatening event, person or object. “It is not requisite, in order to
constitute this crime, that personal violence should be committed.”"

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Apr 7, 9:00*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, Adrian wrote:
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. *Why don't you go away and actually read the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?

Which part? Relevant quote?

You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona
fide reason for doing so.

It follows then, with weapon laws, if a driver does not have a bone
fide reason for having a car in a public place, such as no licence or
insurance, he should be tried for possessing a dangerous weapon.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill with a car weapon.

On Apr 7, 9:18*am, BrianW wrote:
On Apr 7, 7:33*am, Doug wrote:



On Apr 6, 9:07*am, "Norman Wells" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Apr 5, 9:03 am, "Norman Wells" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 3, 8:31 am, BrianW wrote:
Maximum sentence under death by dangerous driving is 14 years. How
often do people convicted of involuntary manslaughter get a
sentence longer than that, Doug?

You are missing the point. Why dream up an alternative charge for
motorists when a suitable one already exists?

So, all speed limits should be abolished, should they? After all,
there's all manner of other general charges that could be brought if
it was actually dangerous.

Speed limits are specific to using a road

No they're not, you see. *As I think you very well know, speed limits do not
apply to cyclists. *They apply specifically to motorists.

Speed limits only apply to roads.

So, we have here a dreamt up "alternative charged for motorists when a
suitable one already exists", which is just what you were criticising.. *So,
why shouldn't all speed limits be abolished?

Who said they should be and how is it relevant?

The point is that special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the
punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have
been quite adequate and where the use of a car as a weapon would be
recognised instead of being ignored.

Doug, even if abolishing "causing death by dangerous driving", in
favour of manslaughter, didn't lead to an increase in killer drivers
walking away scot-free (which it would, as has been explained to you
many times),

Not if juries were screened for motorist majority bias, as they should
be with cases involving cars.

it is by no means clear that they'd be given longer
sentences if convicted of manslaughter. *See, for example:

A law which has a longer maximum sentence suggests that it is more
serious than one with a shorter maximum. Anyway if the 'soft' motoring
laws were abolished there would be no choice but to try for
manslaughter but with a purged jury of course.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...voluntary_mans...

"Appellant, having been indicted for murder, pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. *Within a block of flats, the deceased challenged the
appellant to fight. *Having pulled the deceased down some stairs, the
appellant kicked or stamped on him several times. The deceased died a
month later due to severing of the end of the pancreas caused by a
single blow to the abdomen crushing the pancreas against the spine.
Sentence of six years imprisonment reduced to four years."

"R v Furby [2006] 2 Cr.App.R.(S.) 8 - guideline case
Appellant and deceased were good friends. *For a reason that the court
regarded as an explicable reaction, the appellant struck a single
punch of moderate force to the right cheek, the deceased collapsed to
the ground and died due to a subarachnoid haemorrhage. *Appellant of
good character. *Sentence reduced to 12 months imprisonment. *Case law
cited confirms that if there are aggravating circumstances the
sentence could be as high as four years."

"Attorney General's Reference (No.111 of 2006) (Hussain) [2007]
Cr.App.R.(S.) 26 - guideline case
The offender, a taxi driver, was flagged down by the deceased and his
friends during the early hours of the morning. *The deceased walked in
front of the vehicle, placed his hands on the bonnet and moved
backwards with the taxi, which continued to move forward slowly. *The
deceased lost his footing and fell underneath the vehicle. *The
offender panicked and accelerated, dragging the deceased for about a
mile before he became dislodged at a roundabout. *He then drove away
without stopping. *The offender felt someone under his car and heard
screams. *Guilty plea to manslaughter accepted on the second day of
murder trial. *The offender was aged 44 and of previous good
character. *The Court of Appeal observed that the range of first
instance decisions for similar offences suggested a range between four
and seven years imprisonment. *Sentence increased to five years
imprisonment bearing in mind double jeopardy."

Note that the above are not cherry-picked examples, they are cited in
the CPS's sentencing guidelines.

Apart from the last horrendous example, which should have had a much
longer sentence but of course it involved a driver just like most of
the others on a jury, no weapons were involved. If they had been the
sentences would have been longer.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On Apr 7, 5:10*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 07/04/2011 07:39, Doug wrote:



On Apr 6, 8:55 am, *wrote:
*gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Use a car (or a bike) to attack someone with and it will be treated by the
justice system as a weapon.

The difference being that most of those on a jury also possess and use
a car weapon themselves and are therefore naturally biased in favour
of a fellow motorist.

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns.(Recently updated).
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 08/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:00 am, "Norman wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised as a
weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. Why don't you go away and actually read the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?

Which part? Relevant quote?

You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona
fide reason for doing so.

It follows then, with weapon laws, if a driver does not have a bone
fide reason for having a car in a public place, such as no licence or
insurance, he should be tried for possessing a dangerous weapon.


Oh FFS, are you for real?
An offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing
injury to a person, or *intended"* by the person having it with him for
such use.
The car becomes a weapon when the person using the car decides to use it
as such.

Steve O wrote:
On 08/04/2011 07:25, Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:00 am, "Norman wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The problem here is that a car is not generally perceived as a
weapon

Nor is a hammer.
Nor is a screwdriver.
Nor is a kitchen knife.
Nor is a housebrick.
Nor is a piece of wood.

but it should be.

Should they be, too?

They are when used to attack someone but a car is not recognised
as a weapon as such and it should be.

Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public

Absolute nonsense. Why don't you go away and actually read the
Criminal Justice Act 1988 before you spout such absurdities?

Which part? Relevant quote?

You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona
fide reason for doing so.

It follows then, with weapon laws, if a driver does not have a bone
fide reason for having a car in a public place, such as no licence or
insurance, he should be tried for possessing a dangerous weapon.


Oh FFS, are you for real?
An offensive weapon is any article made or adapted for use for causing
injury to a person, or *intended"* by the person having it with him
for such use.
The car becomes a weapon when the person using the car decides to use
it as such.

as does a bicycle