Self posting video gets him Nine months inside
Discussion
bass gt3 said:
have to agree. Not defending the guys actions but racheting up the sentence because of what MIGHT of happened isn't right. Very thin end of a worrying wedge
I'm going to ask the question that I always ask when people complain about "might". Please be clear that I am not comparing speeding to using a gun,merely using the gun issue to highlight the issue of "might"A guy is cleaning his shotgun, as he has done hundreds of times after his weekend shoot. This time he has accidentally forgotten to check the barrel amd there is still a cartridge in there. As he discharges the gun, it hits his housekeeper and kills her instantly.
His twin brother who is a member of the same gun club goes into the town centre and deliberately starts firing his gun randomly into the shoppers there. Miraculously he neither injured not kills anyone.
Who deserves the fpgreater punishment? Would you actively support the latter' campaign for freedom as he was punished for what might have happened?
Again, I am not comparing guns to speeding and am highlighting a punishment for what might have happened.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you will find its 9 months for the endangerment of other peoples lives. As such I am as said very happy about that.
There is ZERO reason to put me and mine in that sort of danger and I regard him (and other Bikers/Drivers) as a direct threat to me/mine so as he INDENTED to be as reckless as he was, he can rot there.
bass gt3 said:
have to agree. Not defending the guys actions but racheting up the sentence because of what MIGHT of happened isn't right. Very thin end of a worrying wedge
Nonsense. Whether or not he actually killed people was blind luck. His actions and moral blameworthiness are the same in either case. Surely nobody is saying that his riding was anything but extremely reckless?
If you fire a gun randomly into a crowd of people and happen not to hit anyone, you can hardly moan when you are sentenced pretty much as harshly as if you had not been so lucky and had killed someone. His driving was quite a lot like firing a gun with your eyes closed.
Would a ban and a fine really send the right message? Risk people's lives and you just arent allowed to do it again for a while? I think jail was the only appropriate outcome.
ORD said:
bass gt3 said:
have to agree. Not defending the guys actions but racheting up the sentence because of what MIGHT of happened isn't right. Very thin end of a worrying wedge
Nonsense. Whether or not he actually killed people was blind luck. His actions and moral blameworthiness are the same in either case. Surely nobody is saying that his riding was anything but extremely reckless?
If you fire a gun randomly into a crowd of people and happen not to hit anyone, you can hardly moan when you are sentenced pretty much as harshly as if you had not been so lucky and had killed someone. His driving was quite a lot like firing a gun with your eyes closed.
Would a ban and a fine really send the right message? Risk people's lives and you just arent allowed to do it again for a while? I think jail was the only appropriate outcome.
Someone gets nicked for a minor crime, shoplifting for example. Should they be sentenced because they MIGHT have stolen more, robbed a bank??
Or rack up the fine on a minor speeder because the MIGHT have gone faster??
I don't especially disagree with the sentence, it's the weighting because of what MIGHT have happened that makes me uneasy.
Poor example perhaps but it swings both ways
bass gt3 said:
I understand you analogy but lets flip it around.
Someone gets nicked for a minor crime, shoplifting for example. Should they be sentenced because they MIGHT have stolen more, robbed a bank??
Or rack up the fine on a minor speeder because the MIGHT have gone faster??
I don't especially disagree with the sentence, it's the weighting because of what MIGHT have happened that makes me uneasy.
Poor example perhaps but it swings both ways
In your examples, the criminal did not take the actions constituting the more serious crime. He did not rob a bank; he did not go faster. These were things in his control.Someone gets nicked for a minor crime, shoplifting for example. Should they be sentenced because they MIGHT have stolen more, robbed a bank??
Or rack up the fine on a minor speeder because the MIGHT have gone faster??
I don't especially disagree with the sentence, it's the weighting because of what MIGHT have happened that makes me uneasy.
Poor example perhaps but it swings both ways
By contrast, whether or not the biker's actions (or those of the man shooting into a crowd) result in the death or injury of a third party is completely outside his control. Whether or not it happens is just luck, and he behaves as badly in either case. His conduct is so seriously wrong because whether or not it had awful consequences was a matter of chance, and he must have known that and done it anyway.
ORD said:
In your examples, the criminal did not take the actions constituting the more serious crime. He did not rob a bank; he did not go faster. These were things in his control.
By contrast, whether or not the biker's actions (or those of the man shooting into a crowd) result in the death or injury of a third party is completely outside his control. Whether or not it happens is just luck, and he behaves as badly in either case. His conduct is so seriously wrong because whether or not it had awful consequences was a matter of chance, and he must have known that and done it anyway.
But he MIGHT have been about to take the actions... By contrast, whether or not the biker's actions (or those of the man shooting into a crowd) result in the death or injury of a third party is completely outside his control. Whether or not it happens is just luck, and he behaves as badly in either case. His conduct is so seriously wrong because whether or not it had awful consequences was a matter of chance, and he must have known that and done it anyway.
But regardless, he got9and you hit the nail on the head. It's about sending a message. I suspect that's be well achieved. But it's difficult to justify the sentence in light of other overly lenient sentences. It smacks of a witch hunt against the motorist rather than a consistent sentencing process.
t
LoonR1 said:
bass gt3 said:
have to agree. Not defending the guys actions but racheting up the sentence because of what MIGHT of happened isn't right. Very thin end of a worrying wedge
I'm going to ask the question that I always ask when people complain about "might". Please be clear that I am not comparing speeding to using a gun,merely using the gun issue to highlight the issue of "might"A guy is cleaning his shotgun, as he has done hundreds of times after his weekend shoot. This time he has accidentally forgotten to check the barrel amd there is still a cartridge in there. As he discharges the gun, it hits his housekeeper and kills her instantly.
His twin brother who is a member of the same gun club goes into the town centre and deliberately starts firing his gun randomly into the shoppers there. Miraculously he neither injured not kills anyone.
Who deserves the fpgreater punishment? Would you actively support the latter' campaign for freedom as he was punished for what might have happened?
Again, I am not comparing guns to speeding and am highlighting a punishment for what might have happened.
A better analogy would be a guy standing in a street waving a loaded and cocked gun and harming no one. No intent, no harm done but still irresponsible and deserving of a penalty.
Stickyfinger said:
LoonR1 said:
You're going to do well in the Ronald McDonald look-a-like competition.
The T-shirt seemed like a good idea when I was sailing on holiday in the BVI, maybe not now 
Good point, but it does have paint on it now so stays workshop side...note to self (keep it there)
The problem here is speed and different peoples feelings about speed. Speed is essential for travel but too much speed becomes a danger. There would have been no issue if he'd ridden entirely at the legal limit but he MIGHT still have killed someone.
So, at what speed does riding (which always MIGHT kill someone) stop being "safe" and become so dangerous that it deserves a 9 month prison term? (Remembering that other crimes such as assault, ABH, GBH where there is no "safe" level, and people DO get hurt) often don't end up in prison sentences).
The riding was totally inappropriate and the speed was excessive so I'm not, in any way, defending the rider, but personally, I think the punishment was totally disproportionate to the crime. It does the UK justice system no favours when things like this happen and I really think there are no winners in this.
So, at what speed does riding (which always MIGHT kill someone) stop being "safe" and become so dangerous that it deserves a 9 month prison term? (Remembering that other crimes such as assault, ABH, GBH where there is no "safe" level, and people DO get hurt) often don't end up in prison sentences).
The riding was totally inappropriate and the speed was excessive so I'm not, in any way, defending the rider, but personally, I think the punishment was totally disproportionate to the crime. It does the UK justice system no favours when things like this happen and I really think there are no winners in this.
black-k1 said:
The problem here is speed and different peoples feelings about speed. Speed is essential for travel but too much speed becomes a danger. There would have been no issue if he'd ridden entirely at the legal limit but he MIGHT still have killed someone.
So, at what speed does riding (which always MIGHT kill someone) stop being "safe" and become so dangerous that it deserves a 9 month prison term? (Remembering that other crimes such as assault, ABH, GBH where there is no "safe" level, and people DO get hurt) often don't end up in prison sentences).
The riding was totally inappropriate and the speed was excessive so I'm not, in any way, defending the rider, but personally, I think the punishment was totally disproportionate to the crime. It does the UK justice system no favours when things like this happen and I really think there are no winners in this.
Plenty of winners. Every single road user who is a bit safer for that tw+t never riding like that again! And perhaps others will take note of the sentence and restrain themselves, too. So, at what speed does riding (which always MIGHT kill someone) stop being "safe" and become so dangerous that it deserves a 9 month prison term? (Remembering that other crimes such as assault, ABH, GBH where there is no "safe" level, and people DO get hurt) often don't end up in prison sentences).
The riding was totally inappropriate and the speed was excessive so I'm not, in any way, defending the rider, but personally, I think the punishment was totally disproportionate to the crime. It does the UK justice system no favours when things like this happen and I really think there are no winners in this.
He would have killed someone eventually riding like that. I think that is more likely than not.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff