A classic example of the privileged protection status the law gives motorists. This man stuck two fingers up to his previous ban. He is a SERIAL OFFENDER. Based on this evidence, is it unreasonable to suggest he is banned for life? Based on this evidence, is it unreasonable to suggest he should have been jailed? Is it unreasonable to suggest a lengthy sentence for manslaughter? He saw the victim, but CHOSE not to slow down. CHOSE not to take any evasive action whatsoever. Worth noting to, it was dark, visibility was reduced by poor weather. Yet he still saw the victim. He saw him so clearly he was able (in his words) to make a judgement that the victim had seen him, and would stop and wait until the car passed. If the victim had been a cyclist, he would be blamed for not wearing high vis, even though this case is proof that would be irrelevant. Nothing would have changed if this victim was wearing silly yellow jacket. The motorist would have continued at speed regardless. The motorist would have continued on his course regardless. This victim would have been killed, regardless. The reason we see decisions like this almost daily is obvious. Almost 100% of judges, jurors, prosecutors and defense lawyers are also drivers. They can all put themselves in the place of the motorist. The vast majority of them will break the law every time they drive. The vast majority of them think its ok to do so. They speed, they phone, they text, they drive carelessly, they drive in cycle lanes, they abuse ASLs, some will drink drive. They all think there but for the grace of god.... so they all accept ridiculous leniency for the motorist. Yet some think strict liability is not needed........ edinburghnews.scotsman/news/crime/speeding-driver-avoids-prison-after-killing-oap-1-3575648
Posted on: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:19:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015