Another killer driver smashes a shop and kills a boy.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: GT on 19 May 2010 12:17 "Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:OwSIn.1329$HC3.217(a)newsfe04.ams2... > 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. There is no dispute that the person would not have been injured if the car had remained on the road, but making the leap from poor driving to deliberate murder is rediculous. It is rediculous because it does not factor in 'intent'. Driving badly does not, as implied, mean that you intend to commit murder, whereas running at someone with a large knife and plunging it into them with deadly force does rather imply intent to commit murder.
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:29 "Mike Henry" <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:qvl9v5ld0dra5sc6lo5m3qtvtcjln997vd(a)4ax.com... > In <4bf3d821$0$11869$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >>"Mike Henry" <{$mrtickle$}@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:jql5v5hscgk7kprp0etlgl4es08637be3f(a)4ax.com... >>> In <4bf2a63a$0$5897$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>> >>>>"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:85flhtFgk9U9(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> >>>>>> In order to have a license to kill, you need to join the forces where >>>>>> after weapons training + relevant assignment, you will be issued with >>>>>> a >>>>>> 'license to kill'. >>>>> >>>>> <gently> >>>>> James Bond isn't real, y'know. >>>> >>>>:-) >>>> >>>>'License to kill' *does* actually exist tho! >>> >>> Except that thankfully, it uses the correct English spelling of licence, >>> and not the American spelling that you seem to have used (for some >>> reason). >>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097742/ >>> A great film. >> >>Actually, both spellings are valid and in the OED. Words like 'License' >>and >>'realize' were used widely in English when the Americans adopted/inherited >>our language. English has since introduced extra (not replacement) >>spellings >>for some words, typically because a few people spelled the words wrongly a >>few times and the masses followed suit. Eventually everyone was >>miss-spelling things, so the dictionary 'folk' added the new spellings, >>like >>'licence', 'realise' into the dictionary. > > No, in the case of licence in English the "s" spelling is for the verb > only. It's like "advice" and "advise". No, what you quote is convention, not rule. They are both equally valid. For the verb, the dictionary defaults to the 's' version, but states the the 'c' version as equally valid. For the noun it is the opposite. So 'license' is typically used as the verb and 'licence' is typically used as the noun, but they are interchangeable. Check the OED. I have the software installed here, but copy/paste is restricted, so I can't quote directly. How about we just agree to disagree and go back to annoying Doug. >>Just about all bond films are great. > > Agree with that part. The big question is: Roger, Sean, Pierce, or the new guy (I'll not mention Tim)??
From: GT on 20 May 2010 05:31 "Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message news:64o8v5h9j24jvs3rdnosnmvmfg25vpcu95(a)4ax.com... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> considered Wed, 19 May 2010 17:17:37 +0100 the perfect > time to write: > >>"Mrcheerful" <nbkm57(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:OwSIn.1329$HC3.217(a)newsfe04.ams2... >>> 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. >> >>There is no dispute that the person would not have been injured if the car >>had remained on the road, but making the leap from poor driving to >>deliberate murder is rediculous. It is rediculous because it does not >>factor >>in 'intent'. Driving badly does not, as implied, mean that you intend to >>commit murder, whereas running at someone with a large knife and plunging >>it >>into them with deadly force does rather imply intent to commit murder. >> > That is not the issue. No, it *IS* the issue - Doug said that the driver *murdered* him. We say that murder is an intentional thing and an accident cannot be intentional murder. Doug cannot see the difference. Society can. He is wrong.
From: Tom Crispin on 24 May 2010 01:39 On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it? In many cases, yes.
From: Tony Dragon on 24 May 2010 01:51
Tom Crispin wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:27:17 +0100, Tony Dragon > <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> You mean I can kill someone on the pavement & get away with it? > > In many cases, yes. You mean I can't do it all the time? -- Tony Dragon |