Another killer driver smashes a shop and kills a boy.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Mrcheerful on 19 May 2010 09:58 Adrian wrote: > "Tony \(UncleFista\)" <unclefista(a)SPAMMENOTblueyonder.co.uk> gurgled > happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of >>> RELIGION > >> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd >> not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save >> him. It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's >> witless killed him, the car only hurt him..... > > It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to > absolve the fuckwit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place. > > But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since > the kid effectively committed suicide. Not necessarily: However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and pierced her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order to save her life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on religious grounds and duly died from loss of blood. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that the girl's refusal was unreasonable and thereby was a break of the chain of causation. This was not upheld and Lawton LJ said regardless of her religious beliefs, "The question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound." As an alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains to whether an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain of causation linking the defendant to the death.
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 10:00 "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of RELIGION >>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd >>> not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save him. >>> It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's >>> witless killed him, the car only hurt him..... >> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to >> absolve the fuckwit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place. >> >> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since >> the kid effectively committed suicide. > Not necessarily: > > However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and pierced > her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order to save her > life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on religious grounds and > duly died from loss of blood. The defendant was convicted of > manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that the girl's refusal was > unreasonable and thereby was a break of the chain of causation. This was > not upheld and Lawton LJ said regardless of her religious beliefs, "The > question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab > wound." As an alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains > to whether an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain > of causation linking the defendant to the death. Interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions, though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there was no premeditation or deliberate violence?
From: GT on 19 May 2010 10:19 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:85i97mF85qU32(a)mid.individual.net... > "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > >>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of RELIGION > >>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because he'd >>>> not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to save him. >>>> It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a Jehova's >>>> witless killed him, the car only hurt him..... > >>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to >>> absolve the fuckwit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place. >>> >>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, since >>> the kid effectively committed suicide. > >> Not necessarily: >> >> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and pierced >> her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order to save her >> life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on religious grounds and >> duly died from loss of blood. The defendant was convicted of >> manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that the girl's refusal was >> unreasonable and thereby was a break of the chain of causation. This was >> not upheld and Lawton LJ said regardless of her religious beliefs, "The >> question for decision is what caused her death. The answer is the stab >> wound." As an alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains >> to whether an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain >> of causation linking the defendant to the death. > > Interesting. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue > > That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions, > though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there was > no premeditation or deliberate violence? Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are accidental ! Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a lung with your knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing apples with apples here!
From: Mrcheerful on 19 May 2010 10:24 GT wrote: > "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:85i97mF85qU32(a)mid.individual.net... >> "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much >> like they were saying: >> >>>>>> Once again demonstrating the sheer deadly destructiveness of >>>>>> RELIGION >> >>>>> I fixed your post for you Duhhhg, as reported, he died because >>>>> he'd not joined the 21st century and thought his god was going to >>>>> save him. It didn't happen and refusing blood due to him being a >>>>> Jehova's witless killed him, the car only hurt him..... >> >>>> It's also worth noting that nobody has made any comment to try to >>>> absolve the fuckwit who crashed his chavmobile in the first place. >>>> >>>> But to charge him with a fatality would be monumentally unjust, >>>> since the kid effectively committed suicide. >> >>> Not necessarily: >>> >>> However, in r. v Blaue , the defendant stabbed a young girl and >>> pierced her lung and told she needed a blood transfusion in order >>> to save her life. Being a Jehovah's Witness, she refused on >>> religious grounds and duly died from loss of blood. The defendant >>> was convicted of manslaughter and he appealed on the ground that >>> the girl's refusal was unreasonable and thereby was a break of the >>> chain of causation. This was not upheld and Lawton LJ said >>> regardless of her religious beliefs, "The question for decision is >>> what caused her death. The answer is the stab wound." As an >>> alternative, the test of 'reasonable foresight' pertains to whether >>> an intervening act was so unpredictable as to break the chain of >>> causation linking the defendant to the death. >> >> Interesting. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue >> >> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions, >> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there >> was no premeditation or deliberate violence? > > Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are > accidental ! Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a > lung with your knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing > apples with apples here! no, but it is foreseeable that if you drive badly , you may kill someone, the old eggshell skull bit would come in to play, after all that JW would not have been in hospital but for the car smash. So unless the driver can show that the accident was not his fault then causing death by.....something........ driving........ would come in to effect I would expect.
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 10:29
"GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> That does seem to be quite specific about deliberate violent actions, >> though - I wonder how that would compare to a situation where there was >> no premeditation or deliberate violence? > Precisely Adrian - accidents are so called because they are accidental ! > Lunging at someone with enough force so as to pierce a lung with your > knife isn't really an accident. We are not comparing apples with apples > here! He's not being charged with a crime of pre-meditation, though. He is very likely to be charged with Careless or Dangerous Driving. The question is, does that become Death By C/DD? The only difference between the two is whether the person died as a result. Same as between G/ABH and Manslaughter. Seeing that precedent makes me think it could go either way - I would _hope_ that it would go in favour of the death being caused by the religion not the collision, but it may well depend on how serious the injuries otherwise were. |