RE: That Ain't Justice
RE: That Ain't Justice
Monday 9th September 2002

That Ain't Justice

Just four years for hit and run killer


Author
Discussion

vladd

Original Poster:

8,134 posts

285 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
This is going to be massively unpopular but......

1) Yes he should be sanctioned for drving without a licence.

2) Yes he should be sanctioned for driving with defective brakes.

3) Yes he should be sanctioned for leaving the scene of the accident.

4) He should not be sanctioned for the death of a girl if the accident was not his fault. The points 1), 2) and 3) may well be contributing factors, but it may also be possible that the girl stepped out and gave him no chance. The same outcome may have resulted had he been driving a perfect car legally. I don't know the exact circumstances here and the article doesn't say, so it is impossible to draw a conclusion.

What I'm basically trying to say is that if someone drives out of a junction in front of you and you hit them, then generally it is their fault. However if a person steps out in front of you, especially if they are a child, then you are branded a murderer. Emotion and the current 'cars are evil' mentality take over and ignore the logic.

Take a look at the current adverts on TV. There's been an advert recently where a car locks up its front brakes and slides into a child crossing the road. It all happens in slow motion and the commentry is all about 'if you were traveling at 30 you would stop here, but as you're travelling at 40 you've just mown this child into the tarmac.' A valid point and one that shouldn't be disputed, but what if the commentary was changed to, 'Watch what happens to this child as he steps out between two parked cars without looking. If only his parents hadn't let him go into town unsupervised.' Also valid, but not politically correct in the current climate. Whatever happened to the green cross road and pedestrian education? The majority of road accidents involving pedestrians are caused by pedestrians. I would suspect that the little girl involved in the accident was primarily responsible for her own death. Its a tragically sad event, but we shouldn't ignore the facts and automatically blame the driver, not without all of the evidence.

JonRB

78,822 posts

292 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
I remember this case at the time it happened.

As I recall, Leonie was about 6 and was crossing a busy dual carriageway, unsupervised and after dark on a Saturday night. She was also not crossing at a designated crossing place.

Regardless of the other factors of the driver (license, brakes, etc), he didn't really stand a chance of avoiding hitting her.

By all means string him up, but string the parents up too because they are equally to blame for her death.

sjm

789 posts

304 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
I think the 4 years is harsh if the crime was indeed only your points 1,2 and 3, but very lenient if the accident was completely the drivers fault.
Agree with your point about the TV advert. There seems to be no government backed education on pedestrian road safety. I remember Green Cross Code and even the Tufty Club (!) but there seems to be nothing now.

sjm

Alex

9,978 posts

304 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
Unless he actually intended to hit the girl then I think the fact that he did, whilst tragic, should have no bearing on the sentence. He could just have easily careered into an empty field, yet committed an identical offence. Punishment should fit the crime, not the consequences and revenge has no place in a just system.

vladd

Original Poster:

8,134 posts

285 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
Just for additional info, a boy of seven was run over and killed in a town near where I live earlier this year. It turns out that he was out with his mates, was unsupervised by adults and was taking part in a game of chicken with passing cars. I'm sure the statistics will still record it as beig the driver's fault.

PetrolTed

34,461 posts

323 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
I agree with what you guys are saying and my blood pressure was rising when I heard the report on Sky. It included the usual 'Powerful Car' nonsense.

I also am appalled that a six year old girl was allowed out to cross busy roads like that. One of them was reportedly a 60mph limit and I also heard that she'd climbed over some barriers to cross at an inappropriate place. Parents need to think long and hard.

However, there is absolutlely no excuse for leaving the girl dying in the road. That is unforgivable and might be considered a contributory factor in her death.

JonRB

78,822 posts

292 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
Absolutely, Ted - totally agree with you. As I recall saying last time we debated this, I'm not in any way trying to detract from the trajedy of the event, merely to point out that we should be balanced in our opinions by being in posession of as many of the facts of a case as possible.

JSG

2,238 posts

303 months

Monday 9th September 2002
quotequote all
You have raised some good points, BUT he had no licence, no insurance and bugger all brakes (none on three wheels and 5% efficiency on the fourth). He and his car shouldn't have been on the road. If he wasn't there then no accident, if he had brakes he may have stopped - we'll never know.

Fact is that with all that against him and then driving off he was always going to get banged up. And good job too as I wouldn't want him driving into my family or car.