Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Mark McNeill on 29 Nov 2009 09:07 Response to Huge: > >> Look, bozo, attempting to justify ignoring the law because others > >> do it too is "tu quoque". > > > > Er, of course. And when one is not attempting to justify ignoring > > the law? > > Well, you've deleted the context, but trying to justify anything > because someone else does it too qualifies. It's the reasoning of the > infant playground (and cyclists); "Please, Miss, he did it too." I'm afraid you've just repeated what I agreed with: using "tu quoque" as a justification is fallacious. I think we all know that. What I asked was, what if one is not using it as a justification? -- Mark, UK.
From: NM on 29 Nov 2009 10:40 On 29 Nov, 13:48, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message > > news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >> NM wrote: > >> > On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > > >> >> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is > >> >> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. > > >> > Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a > >> > lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to > >> > distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. > > >> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a car > >> was > >> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more > >> difficult > >> to prove otherwise. > > > So what, it's still murder. > > And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence... If you 'get away with it' then there should be no sentence.
From: mileburner on 29 Nov 2009 11:03 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:4fbe66fa-e9df-4305-a097-188f03c6d3e8(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On 29 Nov, 13:48, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >> >> news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> NM wrote: >> >> > On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is >> >> >> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. >> >> >> > Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a >> >> > lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to >> >> > distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. >> >> >> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a >> >> car >> >> was >> >> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more >> >> difficult >> >> to prove otherwise. >> >> > So what, it's still murder. >> >> And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence... > > If you 'get away with it' then there should be no sentence. If you get away with murder but are found guilty of a lesser offence such as causing death by dangerous driving then you are still guilty of an offence. The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If you cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. If it was not dangerous there would have been no death, or even an injury. Perhaps the law should simply be "Causing death by driving".
From: Tony Dragon on 29 Nov 2009 11:51 mileburner wrote: > "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message > news:4fbe66fa-e9df-4305-a097-188f03c6d3e8(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >> On 29 Nov, 13:48, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>> >>> news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>> NM wrote: >>>>>> On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is >>>>>>> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. >>>>>> Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a >>>>>> lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to >>>>>> distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. >>>>> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a >>>>> car >>>>> was >>>>> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more >>>>> difficult >>>>> to prove otherwise. >>>> So what, it's still murder. >>> And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence... >> If you 'get away with it' then there should be no sentence. > > If you get away with murder but are found guilty of a lesser offence such as > causing death by dangerous driving then you are still guilty of an offence. > > The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If you > cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. If it was > not dangerous there would have been no death, or even an injury. > > Perhaps the law should simply be "Causing death by driving". > > The concept of 'intent' is somrthing that you do not understand. -- Tony Dragon
From: mileburner on 29 Nov 2009 12:19
"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:neWdnffzkMwzO4_WnZ2dnUVZ8qRi4p2d(a)bt.com... > mileburner wrote: >> "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message >> news:4fbe66fa-e9df-4305-a097-188f03c6d3e8(a)w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... >>> On 29 Nov, 13:48, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>> NM wrote: >>>>>>> On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is >>>>>>>> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. >>>>>>> Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a >>>>>>> lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to >>>>>>> distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. >>>>>> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a >>>>>> car >>>>>> was >>>>>> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more >>>>>> difficult >>>>>> to prove otherwise. >>>>> So what, it's still murder. >>>> And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence... >>> If you 'get away with it' then there should be no sentence. >> >> If you get away with murder but are found guilty of a lesser offence such >> as causing death by dangerous driving then you are still guilty of an >> offence. >> >> The offence "Causing death by dangerous driving" puzzles me slightly. If >> you cause death by driving, by definition the driving was dangerous. If >> it was not dangerous there would have been no death, or even an injury. >> >> Perhaps the law should simply be "Causing death by driving". > > The concept of 'intent' is somrthing that you do not understand. Are you suggesting that to cause death by dangerous driving there must be an intent to drive dangerously? May I suggest that most of the knob-witted 17 year olds, Audi drivers, taxi drivers, white van men etc. do not consider their driving to be dangerous and therefore there is no intent when they drive dangerously. |