|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 8, 2022 16:51:39 GMT
Could you answer the question then Steve. If it accepted that a driver A error was responsible for a serious accident in which another driver B died but where driver A was not drunk, no drugs no speeding, showed remorse and cooperated, what do you think we the State would gain by imprisoning this driver A? Dan you post your interpretation of another case but haven't posted the link or identified the case, so quite hard for anyone to comment objectively. As the famous phrase goes: Pour encourager les autres Sentencing has to be a deterrent to others. Also if any others have been sentenced for this offence there needs to be consistency |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 8, 2022 16:56:28 GMT
If you are referring to the Penge case, I think it was an aunt not mother, but I guess that doesn't really matter.
It seems the police complaints body felt that the policeman's actions were highly negligent. The CPS saw it as borderline whether or not to prosecute and the jury having heard all the evidence chose to acquit. We must respect their decision. I understand the police will not conduct a misconduct case against the officer. We will see what action he takes.
Police are expected to balance the benefits of chasing vehicles against the risks. It seems the case hinged on that balance. As it happens I have family in the area where the chase started so know the area well and I am surprised that the police would choose to chase a vehicle where the offence suspected was not overly serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 8, 2022 17:06:30 GMT
Could you answer the question then Steve. If it accepted that a driver A error was responsible for a serious accident in which another driver B died but where driver A was not drunk, no drugs no speeding, showed remorse and cooperated, what do you think we the State would gain by imprisoning this driver A? Dan you post your interpretation of another case but haven't posted the link or identified the case, so quite hard for anyone to comment objectively. As the famous phrase goes: Pour encourager les autres Sentencing has to be a deterrent to others. Also if any others have been sentenced for this offence there needs to be consistency You can't really encourage others not to make a stupid mistake though, Steve. If there was drink involved or drugs, or speed or lack of sleep or driving for excessive time, I get your point but none of those applied. So what exactly are you encouraging others not to do? Not to make a mistake? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 8, 2022 17:16:13 GMT
The homeowner received a 22-month jail sentence for causing injury through dangerous driving but the real offence was 'taking the law into his own hands'. The police and the judiciary won't have any of that no matter how useless the police are in dealing with burglaries and burglars. Yes. They often seem to take people's various attempts to substantially defend themselves against criminality as some form of dire personal insult. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 8, 2022 17:19:44 GMT
As the famous phrase goes: Pour encourager les autres Sentencing has to be a deterrent to others. Also if any others have been sentenced for this offence there needs to be consistency You can't really encourage others not to make a stupid mistake though, Steve. If there was drink involved or drugs, or speed or lack of sleep or driving for excessive time, I get your point but none of those applied. So what exactly are you encouraging others not to do? Not to make a mistake? Of course you can, you encourage them to take appropriate care. But if you're saying the law is wrong then I might agree. For just about everything but driving the threshold for criminality is gross negligence and for everything else it becomes civil liability under tort. We should be more consistent. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 8, 2022 17:20:40 GMT
The homeowner received a 22-month jail sentence for causing injury through dangerous driving but the real offence was 'taking the law into his own hands'. The police and the judiciary won't have any of that no matter how useless the police are in dealing with burglaries and burglars. Yes. They often seem to take people's various attempts to substantially defend themselves against criminality as some form of dire personal insult. Chasing after someone with a lethal instrument is not defending yourself is it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 8, 2022 17:41:14 GMT
Chasing after someone with a lethal instrument is not defending yourself is it. By 'with a lethal instrument', I assume you mean in a car, rather than on foot. Whether this is legitimate self defence in this case is debateable. I would say it is, but I could understand this needing some debate. My real point is perhaps, that in a case of driving dangerously, the fact that you are chasing after criminals who broke into your home, should count as a significantly mitigating factor. I certainly see no reason at all to make it an aggravating factor. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 8, 2022 17:44:59 GMT
It is plain ridiculous to say chasing after someone is self defence. It clearly isn't.
BUT it is also plainly unfair to judge someone who has just been robbed/attacked/burgled etc as if they have the clarity of mind of any of us behind a keyboard. And the person responsible for that altered state of mind is the criminal. So that 22 month sentence was equally ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 8, 2022 17:56:01 GMT
You can't really encourage others not to make a stupid mistake though, Steve. If there was drink involved or drugs, or speed or lack of sleep or driving for excessive time, I get your point but none of those applied. So what exactly are you encouraging others not to do? Not to make a mistake? Of course you can, you encourage them to take appropriate care. But if you're saying the law is wrong then I might agree. For just about everything but driving the threshold for criminality is gross negligence and for everything else it becomes civil liability under tort. We should be more consistent. Most people intend to take appropriate care Steve. But humans being humans occasionally they screw up. If they really need a reminder, they are now aware that making that mistake could take an innocent parties life. That feels like enough to remind decent people to take appropriate care. You are presumably suggesting that the only way to make decent people remember to drive on the right side of the road is to imprison someone who forgot and killed someone. That’s nonsense as I am sure you know. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 8, 2022 18:01:28 GMT
It is plain ridiculous to say chasing after someone is self defence. It clearly isn't. BUT it is also plainly unfair to judge someone who has just been robbed/attacked/burgled etc as if they have the clarity of mind of any of us behind a keyboard. And the person responsible for that altered state of mind is the criminal. So that 22 month sentence was equally ridiculous. I think we would need to understand exactly what happened to make that judgement. It seems that he drove at excessive speed and deliberately rammed a motorbike causing serious injury. As the Penge case referred to above shows he could just as easily have crashed into and possibly killed completely innocent passers-by. Of course you have to take into account all factors including the robbery but honestly it seems his actions were grossly irresponsible. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 8, 2022 18:02:04 GMT
It is plain ridiculous to say chasing after someone is self defence. It clearly isn't. In the case of a home entry, I think it arguably is. The criminal in question knows where you live, knows the layout, knows what you have and is able to make repeat attempts at his leisure. Perhaps a little later the same night - or tomorrow night? If he gets caught again all he needs to do is run / drive to get almost certain immunity from consequences. The legal system can't fall asleep at wheel here. People will have to find a way to properly protect themselves if this crime is allowed to fall down the priority list - and they will. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 8, 2022 18:09:55 GMT
Of course you have to take into account all factors including the robbery but honestly it seems his actions were grossly irresponsible. Imho, the entire responsibility should be heaped on the criminals. The whole lot. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 8, 2022 18:10:18 GMT
So Mags you misrepresent taking the law into own hands for visceral reward vigilantism as self defence. It's not
Self defense is about dealing with the immediate risk to your or another person.
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Dec 8, 2022 18:12:49 GMT
Now she has been found guilty she is open to a civil case for compensation.
How much for the life of a young adult with most of his life still ahead of him? How much has she got?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 8, 2022 18:13:36 GMT
Of course you can, you encourage them to take appropriate care. But if you're saying the law is wrong then I might agree. For just about everything but driving the threshold for criminality is gross negligence and for everything else it becomes civil liability under tort. We should be more consistent. Most people intend to take appropriate care Steve. But humans being humans occasionally they screw up. If they really need a reminder, they are now aware that making that mistake could take an innocent parties life. That feels like enough to remind decent people to take appropriate care. You are presumably suggesting that the only way to make decent people remember to drive on the right side of the road is to imprison someone who forgot and killed someone. That’s nonsense as I am sure you know. Your support for people taking risks with my and other's lives is noted. As is your wilful failure to read my last paragraph you quoted. |
|
