13yr old killed in F50

[poo at Paul's]

zarjaz1991 said:

Yes, obviously unless I hold an opinion permitted by people in PH I must be just a kid wth two Mondeos.

It happens that I hold a different opinion. Not everyone could cope with a prison sentence, nor the knowledge that ththe y killed a child. Some may consider that ending their own life would be the best way. Sometimes that feeling is overpowering.

I suspect you may not know people as much as you might.

This guy will have bene full of remorse I am sure, but most people with families etc will fight as hard as they can to protect themselves and their loved ones.
He may cough to it and admit guilt, but it is most likely he will have a full on defence to try to save his skin. If he fails, it is unlikely he will top himself. just on statistics, unlikely.
You may be right and he will, but it is not likely.

[carl_w]

Dr Jekyll said:

Murph7355 said:

We're discussing whether different sentences should be given for a manslaughter charge through driving.

No we aren't. We are discussing to what extent consequences of an error should affect the sentence for that error. Nobody has said that manslaughter while driving should get a lesser sentence than manslaughter while doing anything else.

ISTR a discussion about this a long time ago, concerning the bloke who fell asleep at the wheel and his Land Rover careered off the road and into the path of a train from Doncaster->London.

He fell asleep at the wheel. If he'd have just ended up upside down in the barriers there would have been little in the way of prosecution. Can he be held responsible for what happened after he fell asleep, rather than the falling asleep (clearly so as they banged him up)?

[ClaphamGT3]

A guy, on the spur of the moment, does what should have been an amazing thing and takes a 13year old kid for a spin in an iconic supercar. A tragic chain of events - the driver's exuberance, the presence of a fence, the fact that a private road doesn't conform to the standards of an adopted highway and sheer, bloody bad luck - all conspire to create a tragic accident in which the boy loses his life.

The boy is dead, the driver will live with the fact that his 'good deed' had tragic consequences until his dying day.

How does hysterically calling the driver a "child killer" help anyone?

[zarjaz1991]

poo at Paul's said:

I suspect you may not know people as much as you might.

This guy will have bene full of remorse I am sure, but most people with families etc will fight as hard as they can to protect themselves and their loved ones.
He may cough to it and admit guilt, but it is most likely he will have a full on defence to try to save his skin. If he fails, it is unlikely he will top himself. just on statistics, unlikely.
You may be right and he will, but it is not likely.

I doubt he will. I'm really just saying it's probably what I'd do. I really don't see how anyone can cope with being responsible for such an incident, and then on top of that to have to serve a prison sentence as well. Obviously, some people can. I couldn't, and I'd take the coward's way out.

[zarjaz1991]

ClaphamGT3 said:

A guy, on the spur of the moment, does what should have been an amazing thing and takes a 13year old kid for a spin in an iconic supercar. A tragic chain of events - the driver's exuberance, the presence of a fence, the fact that a private road doesn't conform to the standards of an adopted highway and sheer, bloody bad luck - all conspire to create a tragic accident in which the boy loses his life.

The boy is dead, the driver will live with the fact that his 'good deed' had tragic consequences until his dying day.

How does hysterically calling the driver a "child killer" help anyone?

It doesn't, and I'm not calling him that, but that is what he WILL be seen as inside, and they don't like it as a rule.

[Vaud]

zarjaz1991 said:

It doesn't, and I'm not calling him that, but that is what he WILL be seen as inside, and they don't like it as a rule.

Have you been inside?

[anonymous-user]

Vaud said:

zarjaz1991 said:

It doesn't, and I'm not calling him that, but that is what he WILL be seen as inside, and they don't like it as a rule.

Have you been inside?

I sincerely doubt it.

[NRS]

zarjaz1991 said:

It doesn't, and I'm not calling him that, but that is what he WILL be seen as inside, and they don't like it as a rule.

I think most criminals are smart enough to know the difference between manslaughter and a hardened child killer.

[Vaud]

NRS said:

zarjaz1991 said:

It doesn't, and I'm not calling him that, but that is what he WILL be seen as inside, and they don't like it as a rule.

I think most criminals are smart enough to know the difference between manslaughter and a hardened child killer.

Quite. He didn't set out to kill the child.

And if he does go down, it would be a relatively short stint in a "full on" prison before moving to an open prison?

[PurpleTurtle]

Appeared today, pleaded not guilty, trial set for February 2018.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4731894/Bu...

[anonymous-user]

Trying to understand a 'not guilty' plea. Are there other circumstances regarding the crash that we are not aware of?

[HTP99]

garyhun said:

Trying to understand a 'not guilty' plea. Are there other circumstances regarding the crash that we are not aware of?

A not guilty plea will go to a jury, perhaps he has been advised by his lawyers to do this because the "death by careless" charge is quite flimsy?

[Soov330e]

HTP99 said:

garyhun said:

Trying to understand a 'not guilty' plea. Are there other circumstances regarding the crash that we are not aware of?

A not guilty plea will go to a jury, perhaps he has been advised by his lawyers to do this because the "death by careless" charge is quite flimsy?

Perhaps he thinks that he may have a defence? Certain requirements have to be fulfilled in order to prove the offence.

He may also perhaps think that "there but for the grace of god".

Who knows.

Cold tyres, dust, good intentions....................

I feel a bit sorry for him to be honest.

Edited by Soov330e on Wednesday 26th July 16:13

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

Examples need to be made of people to try and deter others from doing the same...

If the thought of hurting someone doesn't keep a lid on someone's driving do you really think stiffer sentencing will?

[anonymous-user]

Soov330e said:

HTP99 said:

garyhun said:

Trying to understand a 'not guilty' plea. Are there other circumstances regarding the crash that we are not aware of?

A not guilty plea will go to a jury, perhaps he has been advised by his lawyers to do this because the "death by careless" charge is quite flimsy?

Perhaps he thinks that he may have a defence? Certain requirements have to be fulfilled in order to prove the offence.

He may also perhaps think that "there but for the grace of god".

Who knows.

Cold tyres, dust, good intentions....................

I feel a bit sorry for him to be honest.

Edited by Soov330e on Wednesday 26th July 16:13

It's certainly a hugely heavy burden to carry.

[TTmonkey]

Soov330e said:

HTP99 said:

garyhun said:

Trying to understand a 'not guilty' plea. Are there other circumstances regarding the crash that we are not aware of?

A not guilty plea will go to a jury, perhaps he has been advised by his lawyers to do this because the "death by careless" charge is quite flimsy?

Perhaps he thinks that he may have a defence? Certain requirements have to be fulfilled in order to prove the offence.

He may also perhaps think that "there but for the grace of god".

Who knows.

Cold tyres, dust, good intentions....................

I feel a bit sorry for him to be honest.

Edited by Soov330e on Wednesday 26th July 16:13

There is lots we don't know. Did the crash happen at 40mph? If so, death by dangerous driving is a stretch, If however the speedo says 120mph, then I think there's a lot of explaining to do,.

[eldar]

TTmonkey said:

There is lots we don't know. Did the crash happen at 40mph? If so, death by dangerous driving is a stretch, If however the speedo says 120mph, then I think there's a lot of explaining to do,.

The charge is death by careless driving, not dangerous.

[anonymous-user]

TTmonkey said:

There is lots we don't know. Did the crash happen at 40mph? If so, death by dangerous driving is a stretch, If however the speedo says 120mph, then I think there's a lot of explaining to do,.

If they went into that fence sideways I think it's entirely possible it happened at slow speed. I don't know why everyone is trying to second guess the CPS, they presumably have charged him with what they think they can prove.

[AJL308]

carl_w said:

ISTR a discussion about this a long time ago, concerning the bloke who fell asleep at the wheel and his Land Rover careered off the road and into the path of a train from Doncaster->London.

He fell asleep at the wheel.0 If he'd have just ended up upside down in the barriers there would have been little in the way of prosecution. Can he be held responsible for what happened after he fell asleep, rather than the falling asleep (clearly so as they banged him up)?

This is true - there would have been nothing to prosecute other than perhaps dangerous driving at most. Given that his falling asleep ended in the deaths of several people and a st load of property damage (£25m or something) there were other crimes he could be tried for. Of course he can be held responsible for what happened after he fell asleep as his own actions caused it; he had spent the previous night up late on the phone and knew he was not fit to drive.

[AJL308]

garyhun said:

Trying to understand a 'not guilty' plea. Are there other circumstances regarding the crash that we are not aware of?

To be guilty of causing death by careless driving the following criteria must be proved in relation to the carelessness part of it. A person drives carelessly if:

"....the way they drive falls below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver.".

Without knowing the exact circumstances of the crash (which we don't) it's impossible to comment.