|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car
On 24/05/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2021 10:25 am, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2021 01:32, JNugent wrote: On 22/05/2021 09:43 pm, TMS320 wrote: On 22/05/2021 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote: On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote: On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, wrote: https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-d...der-car-283521 The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many Â*Collins-type harumphing complaints that the court should have handed down a lifetime ban from driving. You know, a punishment that doesn't actually exist in law and which as a consequence, the court may not inflict (some liberal nonsense about courts having to act lawfully, I expect). Perhaps there are a few banana republics around the world where arbitrary power of that sort may be wielded. What is the maximum punishment available to the court? Was it more than a measly 54 month driving ban and if it was, why wasn't it applied? I don't know offhand what the maximum penalties might have been (you could always look up the legislation), but would suggest that in the circumstances of that particular offender, the penalties handed down were fairly robust. There has to be a chance that he won't outlive the end of either part. Perhaps, but just because something doesn't exist is no reason why Â*people can't harrumph about it. As it happens, a 74 year old given a disqualification for 54 months has probably got something pretty close to a lifetime driving ban, given average life expectancy. There's more than a fair chance that he'll never drive again. Getting insurance may be a significant problem after his disqualification period expires. From what I hear, it's even a problem for octogenarians who have not committed any offences at all, let alone serious ones like this. If the law wasn't infallible a 20 year old under identical circumstances should get the same sentence. The practicalities are irrelevant. The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a 74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to accommodate that. Of course the circumstances of the incident can be identical. Only Â*external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different. The contemporary circumstances *and* antecedence of an offender are *always* taken into account for sentencing purposes. Yes, but you're just telling us that the law takes external matters into account. We know that already from the stories about people getting lenient sentences after grovelling to the judge. "External matters" are part of the circumstances. People bring their personal circumstances (and their personal histories) with them wherever they go. How could they possibly not? The road is a place where skills have to be considered, not personal issues. The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a 74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to accommodate that. There is nothing to invent in the definition of identical. I rather suspect that if you heard of a case in which a 20-yr-old was up on a charge of driving without due care and attention and had a score-card of half a dozen previous offences of a similar nature, you'd be miffed if he were not banned. The case is about running people over. If the law allows someone to get a "score card" we have a very serious problem. I also rather suspect that if you, at the age, of say, 60, were up on a charge of the same offence but had absolutely history of such offences in 40 years of faultless driving, you'd be pretty miffed to be treated the same - and to get the same outcome - as the 20-yr-old tearaway. You'd have a reasonable expectation of your record being taken into account (and counting in your favour). When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not going to fix anything. You wouldn't be alone in that. But see? You *do* agree with *all* the circumstances being taken into account and rightly see the decisions of courts to be taken a bit more seriously and solemnly than those of traffic wardens when handing out FPNs for parking. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:43:16 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not going to fix anything. Quite: ". People don't just suddenly get drunk at age 76 and totally lose control after a life of responsible driving, so I do wonder if it wasn't the first time and he previously had just been lucky not to cause any collisions before. " |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car
On 25/05/2021 09:43 am, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2021 10:25 am, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2021 01:32, JNugent wrote: On 22/05/2021 09:43 pm, TMS320 wrote: On 22/05/2021 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote: On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote: On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, wrote: https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-d...der-car-283521 The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many Â*Collins-type harumphing complaints that the court should have handed down a lifetime ban from driving. You know, a punishment that doesn't actually exist in law and which as a consequence, the court may not inflict (some liberal nonsense about courts having to act lawfully, I expect). Perhaps there are a few banana republics around the world where arbitrary power of that sort may be wielded. What is the maximum punishment available to the court? Was it more than a measly 54 month driving ban and if it was, why wasn't it applied? I don't know offhand what the maximum penalties might have been (you could always look up the legislation), but would suggest that in the circumstances of that particular offender, the penalties handed down were fairly robust. There has to be a chance that he won't outlive the end of either part. Perhaps, but just because something doesn't exist is no reason why Â*people can't harrumph about it. As it happens, a 74 year old given a disqualification for 54 months has probably got something pretty close to a lifetime driving ban, given average life expectancy. There's more than a fair chance that he'll never drive again. Getting insurance may be a significant problem after his disqualification period expires. From what I hear, it's even a problem for octogenarians who have not committed any offences at all, let alone serious ones like this. If the law wasn't infallible a 20 year old under identical circumstances should get the same sentence. The practicalities are irrelevant. The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a 74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to accommodate that. Of course the circumstances of the incident can be identical. Only Â*external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different. The contemporary circumstances *and* antecedence of an offender are *always* taken into account for sentencing purposes. Yes, but you're just telling us that the law takes external matters into account. We know that already from the stories about people getting lenient sentences after grovelling to the judge. "External matters" are part of the circumstances. People bring their personal circumstances (and their personal histories) with them wherever they go. How could they possibly not? The road is a place where skills have to be considered, not personal issues. "Everything" that surrounds an incident is a circumstance. Did they not offer Latin at your secondary school? The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a 74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to accommodate that. There is nothing to invent in the definition of identical. I rather suspect that if you heard of a case in which a 20-yr-old was up on a charge of driving without due care and attention and had a score-card of half a dozen previous offences of a similar nature, you'd be miffed if he were not banned. The case is about running people over. Knocking a pedestrian over will often not be a driver's fault. In many other cases, though, the charge will be "driving without due care and attention". Come on... you *know* that. Don't act daft. If the law allows someone to get a "score card" we have a very serious problem. I don't accept that you are so misinformed as to imagine that antecedence is of no relevance or interest to a court. You're being dafter than usual. I also rather suspect that if you, at the age, of say, 60, were up on a charge of the same offence but had absolutely history of such offences in 40 years of faultless driving, you'd be pretty miffed to be treated the same - and to get the same outcome - as the 20-yr-old tearaway. You'd have a reasonable expectation of your record being taken into account (and counting in your favour). When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not going to fix anything. That is not the issue. And you know that, despite your affected air of ignorance. You wouldn't be alone in that. But see? You *do* agree with *all* the circumstances being taken into account and rightly see the decisions of courts to be taken a bit more seriously and solemnly than those of traffic wardens when handing out FPNs for parking. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:43:16 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
The case is about running people over. It's a bit more serious than simply running over a child. He ran over the child, THEN *reversed* over him THEN dragged him under the car before abandoning the vehicle before running off. He was more than DOUBLE the drink drive limit. This piece of scum only got 2 1/2 years in jail. A pathetic sentence in any point of view. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car
On 25/05/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2021 09:43 am, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote: On 24/05/2021 10:25 am, TMS320 wrote: On 24/05/2021 01:32, JNugent wrote: On 22/05/2021 09:43 pm, TMS320 wrote: On 22/05/2021 15:18, JNugent wrote: On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote: On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote: On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, wrote: https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-d...der-car-283521 The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many Â*Collins-type harumphing complaints that the court should have handed down a lifetime ban from driving. You know, a punishment that doesn't actually exist in law and which as a consequence, the court may not inflict (some liberal nonsense about courts having to act lawfully, I expect). Perhaps there are a few banana republics around the world where arbitrary power of that sort may be wielded. What is the maximum punishment available to the court? Was it more than a measly 54 month driving ban and if it was, why wasn't it applied? I don't know offhand what the maximum penalties might have been (you could always look up the legislation), but would suggest that in the circumstances of that particular offender, the penalties handed down were fairly robust. There has to be a chance that he won't outlive the end of either part. Perhaps, but just because something doesn't exist is no reason why Â*people can't harrumph about it. As it happens, a 74 year old given a disqualification for 54 months has probably got something pretty close to a lifetime driving ban, given average life expectancy. There's more than a fair chance that he'll never drive again. Getting insurance may be a significant problem after his disqualification period expires. From what I hear, it's even a problem for octogenarians who have not committed any offences at all, let alone serious ones like this. If the law wasn't infallible a 20 year old under identical circumstances should get the same sentence. The practicalities are irrelevant. The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a 74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to accommodate that. Of course the circumstances of the incident can be identical. Only Â*external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different. The contemporary circumstances *and* antecedence of an offender are *always* taken into account for sentencing purposes. Yes, but you're just telling us that the law takes external matters into account. We know that already from the stories about people getting lenient sentences after grovelling to the judge. "External matters" are part of the circumstances. People bring their personal circumstances (and their personal histories) with them wherever they go. How could they possibly not? The road is a place where skills have to be considered, not personal issues. "Everything" that surrounds an incident is a circumstance Did they not offer Latin at your secondary school? I did. I was good it it but didn't take the O level because I disliked the teacher. Think Monty Python. The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a 74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to accommodate that. There is nothing to invent in the definition of identical. I rather suspect that if you heard of a case in which a 20-yr-old was up on a charge of driving without due care and attention and had a score-card of half a dozen previous offences of a similar nature, you'd be miffed if he were not banned. The case is about running people over. Knocking a pedestrian over will often not be a driver's fault. This case is about running someone over. In many other cases, though, the charge will be "driving without due care and attention". Come on... you *know* that. Don't act daft. If the law allows someone to get a "score card" we have a very serious problem. I don't accept that you are so misinformed as to imagine that antecedence is of no relevance or interest to a court. It is not necessary to be misinformed to disagree with something. You're being dafter than usual. I find it difficult to believe that someone can be so daft to think the law is perfect. I also rather suspect that if you, at the age, of say, 60, were up on a charge of the same offence but had absolutely history of such offences in 40 years of faultless driving, you'd be pretty miffed to be treated the same - and to get the same outcome - as the 20-yr-old tearaway. You'd have a reasonable expectation of your record being taken into account (and counting in your favour). When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not going to fix anything. That is not the issue. And you know that, despite your affected air of ignorance. Deterioration of the brain with age is an established phenomenon. And it's never going to improve. Remarkable that you don't know that. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car
On 25/05/2021 17:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:43:16 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote: The case is about running people over. It's a bit more serious than simply running over a child. He ran over the child, THEN *reversed* over him THEN dragged him under the car before abandoning the vehicle before running off. He was more than DOUBLE the drink drive limit. This piece of scum only got 2 1/2 years in jail. A pathetic sentence in any point of view. Indeed. Except Nugent can't handle more than one simple idea at a time. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver who left cyclist with brain damage and drove away beforetelling police his car had been stolen is jailed | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 0 | August 20th 20 06:01 PM |
King's Lynn drink-driver hit cyclist and drove off, magistrates told | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 0 | July 13th 20 10:43 AM |
Cyclist thought impatient driver who drove into him was 'going tokill him' | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 14 | March 5th 20 09:45 AM |
No-licence driver injured cyclist then drove off | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 1 | December 19th 19 12:03 PM |
18-month ban for dangerous driver who drove into the back of cyclist | Simon Mason[_6_] | UK | 4 | November 28th 19 09:13 AM |