JoelP
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 09:43 PM |
|
|
Liability
If you drive into a stationary car, how is it not your fault? And if someone dies, how is that too not your fault? Are you allowed to ram people if
they leave their cars were they arent meant to be? Or are you, as a competent driver, expected to be looking out for other peoples mistakes and making
up for them?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7759093.stm
|
|
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 09:50 PM |
|
|
because his solicitor can not be saying it was his fault. his solicitor's job it to convince everyone else its not his fault.
when has any lawyer defending a murder suspect ever turned around in court court and said "yeah, he blatantly did it, your honour"
i think thats the only reason
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 10:10 PM |
|
|
He did plead guilty......says it all
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
gulity... to 'dangerous driving', not 'causing death by dangerous driving'.
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
Clearly it was his fault but that's not how an adversarial judicial sentence works. His lawyer has to persuade the court that he is a saint who
was maliciously injured by a car illegally stationary in the fast lane of the motorway, whose minimum speed limit is 30. The other lawyer has to make
out that he is reckless and feckless, a menace to society who should be punished most harshly. After a guilty plea, the judge decides what punishment
fits the crime, in balance to other similar crimes with reference to the mitigating and aggravating factors of this incident. It is the least worst
workable legal system invented by man. Having seen it at work as a juror, I wouldn't want to be in jeopardy of it. Seeing it at work just made
me want to be totally law abiding.
|
|
|
nitram38
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 10:25 PM |
|
|
I have done jury service. One thing I realised about courts, unless you are there to witness the whole case, it is difficult to come to a
conclusion.
The trouble with the news/media is that it tends to cherry pick what it is telling the public.
I am not defending the driver, just pointing out that we do not know all of the facts.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 10:27 PM |
|
|
i suspect this charge only relates to the texting whilst driving, not the actual crash. Which isnt right in my book; colliding with a stationary
vehicle is easily avoidable - you just look where you are going, nothing more or less. It seems obvious that being distracted by texting has caused
him to hit an object he should've avoided, leading to a fatality. So to me that is causing death by dangerous driving.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 1/12/08 at 11:26 PM |
|
|
I was always told that if you have you handbrake on (and are stationary) it has to be the other persons fault.
You should drive in such a manner you can avoid all other vehicles. If the other vehicle is stationary (and the hand brake makes this so) then you
have to be braking the law to hit it.
Not sure if this is true - but it makes sense.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:46 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
i suspect this charge only relates to the texting whilst driving, not the actual crash. Which isnt right in my book; colliding with a stationary
vehicle is easily avoidable - you just look where you are going, nothing more or less. It seems obvious that being distracted by texting has caused
him to hit an object he should've avoided, leading to a fatality. So to me that is causing death by dangerous driving.
Yes, but his beak is arguing he was texting before the accident and that was dangerous driving, but they can't prove he was texting at the time
of the accident, so that would at worse be driving without due care for which there isn't a "causing death by" version.
By pleading guilty and arguing like that the CPS will drop the impossible to prove case to get something, and he'll get a reduced sentence with
no chance of jail time.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
