|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
Doug wrote:
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.”" and terrorists on cycles frequent the pavements, when will sanctions be used aginst them? |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
Doug wrote:
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. when a jury trial is starting, either side can ask for the removal of any jury member for any reason, so there is no need for any bias on the jury in favour of a motorist, just keep changing jurors till you get 12 gonks dressed in lycra. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
Doug gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying: Note also that you are not allowed to carry a knife in public You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona fide reason for doing so. Can you spot the difference between those two statements of yours? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
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? 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. I'd suggest that just as high a proportion own kitchen knives, screwdrivers, hammers... |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
On 08/04/2011 08:10, Mrcheerful wrote:
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 Or a cucumber. How far do you want to go with this? ;-) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:58:57 +0100, The Medway Handyman wrote:
You have just shot yourself in the foot again idiot. It really is a great honour to be idiotted by the Meds. Next in line is the award of having the personality of wallpaper -- 67.4% of statistics are made up. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
On Apr 8, 7:25*am, Doug 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? Which part? Relevant quote? You are only allowed to carry a knife in public if you have a bona fide reason for doing so. Bzzzt, wrong. If you were to break the habit of a lifetime and actually *learn* something before spouting, you'd see that s. 139(2) and (3) of the CJA 1988 say: (2)Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife. (3)This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...ensive-weapons So you are allowed to carry a folding pocketknife with a blade less than 3 inches long, without having to show a reason for carrying it. And I'm pretty sure that a folding pocketknife with a blade of, say, 2.5 inches could be used to kill someone. 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. No it doesn't. I could carry a big lump of wood without breaking the law. Yet I could use that lump of wood to kill someone. You really are a useless old loon, aren't you Gollum? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
On Apr 8, 7:38*am, Doug wrote:
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. The first example involves kicking or stamping on someone several times. Result - 4 years. What difference does it make whether or not a weapon is used? Kicking or stamping on someone several times can be just as dangerous as, say, stabbing them, or hitting them with a baseball bat. If 4 years is the appropriate sentence for *deliberately* attacking someone (albeit without intention to kill or cause GBH), what would be the appropriate sentence for killing someone with car, where the driver is driving dangerously but didn't deliberately set out to hit anyone? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
In message
, BrianW writes I could carry a big lump of wood without breaking the law. Yet I could use that lump of wood to kill someone. Just make sure that wood is not the shape of a table leg, or you might get killed yourself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1 etc. -- Ian |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Car deliberately used as a weapon.
Doug wrote:
On Apr 7, 8:54 am, "Norman Wells" 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... Look, if you're objecting that "special 'soft' laws have been dreamed up for the punishment of dangerous drivers on roads when existing laws would have been quite adequate", you must therefore be objecting to speed limits too, which are exactly that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Motorist rammer deliberately injures 13 year old girl. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 1 | December 23rd 10 11:19 AM |
While I was cycling this morning I saw a car deliberately driventhrough a red light. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 9 | September 9th 10 02:52 PM |
Car deliberately used as a weapon on pavement. | Doug[_3_] | UK | 23 | August 3rd 10 07:45 AM |
DELIBERATELY INADEQUATE PARKING | Nuxx Bar | UK | 14 | March 22nd 09 09:19 PM |
Homos Looking to Deliberately Be Infected With HIV | Gay Rights! IN YOUR FACE | Social Issues | 0 | December 14th 04 07:16 AM |