The law is a joke!
Discussion
4v6 said:
Facilitating the comission of a crime?
How about since he knew what his pal there did previously whilst driving illegally, ie acting like a 100% anushole kinda makes him at least 50% responsible for the death of an innocent man, no?
Yes, facilitating the commission of a crime, namely, the document offences of the driver driving without a licence / insurance etc. How about since he knew what his pal there did previously whilst driving illegally, ie acting like a 100% anushole kinda makes him at least 50% responsible for the death of an innocent man, no?
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
La Liga said:
es, facilitating the commission of a crime, namely, the document offences of the driver driving without a licence / insurance etc.
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
Could he have killed the other guy without the car?If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
La Liga said:
es, facilitating the commission of a crime, namely, the document offences of the driver driving without a licence / insurance etc.
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
I would suggest otherwise...If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
4v6 said:
Could he have killed the other guy without the car?
That doesn't make him criminally culpable. Scuffers said:
La Liga said:
Yes, facilitating the commission of a crime, namely, the document offences of the driver driving without a licence / insurance etc.
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
I would suggest otherwise...If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
Remember I was quite specific to make a comparison with this motoring case.
La Liga said:
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
The key part is the extent of the lending and knowledge of the use. It was for you to go clay pigeon shooting and nothing more. If I lent it to you to kill someone then that'd be a different matter. It's similar to this. The person who has hired the car has done so to allow his friend to drive it who isn't able to. He hasn't done it with the purpose of that person commuting the offence of death by dangerous driving (I assume!). La Liga said:
Remember I was quite specific to make a comparison with this motoring case.
so, just to be clear, driving a car without a licence is illegal.La Liga said:
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
The key part is the extent of the lending and knowledge of the use. It was for you to go clay pigeon shooting and nothing more. If I lent it to you to kill someone then that'd be a different matter. It's similar to this. The person who has hired the car has done so to allow his friend to drive it who isn't able to. He hasn't done it with the purpose of that person commuting the offence of death by dangerous driving (I assume!). if I hired a car specifically for somebody without a licence to drive about, that's pretty clear cut, I am 100% knowing that letting him drive the car is breaking the law, that's aiding and abetting.
tell me how I am wrong?
La Liga said:
Remember I was quite specific to make a comparison with this motoring case.
"It is an offence to give or sell a shot gun to someone who is not authorised to possess it – usually by virtue of a shot gun certificate."La Liga said:
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
The key part is the extent of the lending and knowledge of the use. It was for you to go clay pigeon shooting and nothing more. If I lent it to you to kill someone then that'd be a different matter. It's similar to this. The person who has hired the car has done so to allow his friend to drive it who isn't able to. He hasn't done it with the purpose of that person commuting the offence of death by dangerous driving (I assume!). From http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutus/aboutus-...
There are regulations when it is permitted: http://www.bds.org.uk/lending_rifles.html - that includes being constantly observed by the FAC holder.
xRIEx said:
There are regulations when it is permitted: http://www.bds.org.uk/lending_rifles.html - that includes being constantly observed by the FAC holder.
exactly, yet, you can let somebody else use it, BUT, you are responsible for them.Much the same as a supervising driver with a learner.
4v6 said:
As for his "intent" anyone, anyone at all already knows the likely outcome of a high speed collision with another vehicle or human in such an area so the intent arguments wont wash, he was absolutely aware of what can happen yet he drove intending to put himself and others at risk by his actions.
However likely an outcome, awareness of what *can* happen are not the same as intent to bring about that outcome.xRIEx said:
La Liga said:
Remember I was quite specific to make a comparison with this motoring case.
"It is an offence to give or sell a shot gun to someone who is not authorised to possess it – usually by virtue of a shot gun certificate."La Liga said:
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
The key part is the extent of the lending and knowledge of the use. It was for you to go clay pigeon shooting and nothing more. If I lent it to you to kill someone then that'd be a different matter. It's similar to this. The person who has hired the car has done so to allow his friend to drive it who isn't able to. He hasn't done it with the purpose of that person commuting the offence of death by dangerous driving (I assume!). Scuffers said:
xRIEx said:
There are regulations when it is permitted: http://www.bds.org.uk/lending_rifles.html - that includes being constantly observed by the FAC holder.
exactly, yet, you can let somebody else use it, BUT, you are responsible for them.Much the same as a supervising driver with a learner.
otolith said:
La Liga said:
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
How about if you lent it to me to go and commit a crime with, and in the process of that crime I killed someone?La Liga said:
otolith said:
La Liga said:
If I lent you my shotgun because you didn't have a licence to go clay pigeon shooting. I'm not criminally culpable if you go out and kill people with it.
How about if you lent it to me to go and commit a crime with, and in the process of that crime I killed someone?La Liga said:
You're not if they do something well beyond the purpose of the lending. Are you suggesting there's unlimited liability? That if someone who you've lent a rifle to in the circumstances above suddenly runs off and shoots lots of people you're culpable for that, too? Or if a learner driver violently (and unavoidably from the instructor's POV) steers into a pedestrian the instructor is liable?
to a point, yes you are, and it's up to the courts to decide how much culpability you have in it.letting an unlicensed driver drive a car is knowingly allowing them to commit an offence, period.
Scuffers said:
letting an unlicensed driver drive a car is knowingly allowing them to commit an offence, period.
Who is disputing otherwise? We've been talking about which offences and where the lender's liability ends. otolith said:
Indeed. I would suggest, though, that it is closer to what happened than lending someone a gun to shoot clay pigeons with. He knew that he was facilitating something both illegal and dangerous.
What he knew and didn't know is unknown. Lending someone a car who doesn't have a licence isn't dangerous per se, and that's the (one) issue with suggesting the lender is culpable for the death by dangerous driving. La Liga said:
Scuffers said:
letting an unlicensed driver drive a car is knowingly allowing them to commit an offence, period.
Who is disputing otherwise? We've been talking about which offences and where the lender's liability ends. Nobody is suggesting that he is charged with manslaughter, however, he should be charged with aiding and abetting.
La Liga said:
Scuffers said:
letting an unlicensed driver drive a car is knowingly allowing them to commit an offence, period.
Who is disputing otherwise? We've been talking about which offences and where the lender's liability ends. otolith said:
Indeed. I would suggest, though, that it is closer to what happened than lending someone a gun to shoot clay pigeons with. He knew that he was facilitating something both illegal and dangerous.
What he knew and didn't know is unknown. Lending someone a car who doesn't have a licence isn't dangerous per se, and that's the (one) issue with suggesting the lender is culpable for the death by dangerous driving. Whether it is legally feasible to punish the guy is another question, but morally he is culpable for the death, IMO. At the very least he should have the book thrown at him for any offences he did commit - if it is possible to prosecute him for permitting someone else to drive without insurance, and not in accordance with his licence, for example.
otolith said:
Whether it is legally feasible to punish the guy is another question, but morally he is culpable for the death, IMO. At the very least he should have the book thrown at him for any offences he did commit - if it is possible to prosecute him for permitting someone else to drive without insurance, and not in accordance with his licence, for example.
this is usually brought up when a child takes their parents car and crashes it.the parents have to say they stole it or face charges for allowing them to take it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff