Exactly. Yet the press will pick up this point as one of the main factors.
Goalie charged
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
Exactly. Yet the press will pick up this point as one of the main factors.
There's not a lot to debate about really.
If you're involved in an accident, which kills someone and you then blow above the limit at the roadside and again at the polise station then you are probably in the brown stuff for causing death by dangerous driving.
I haven't looked it up fully but for the offence of dangerous driving to be made out:
the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
If you have 3 times the blood acohol limit you probably automatically fall into that category.
If you're involved in an accident, which kills someone and you then blow above the limit at the roadside and again at the polise station then you are probably in the brown stuff for causing death by dangerous driving.
I haven't looked it up fully but for the offence of dangerous driving to be made out:
the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
If you have 3 times the blood acohol limit you probably automatically fall into that category.
Oh well that makes it all right then. If I push someone off a cliff, I'll now know that it wasn't me that was responsible for killing them, but the high speed impact on pointy rocks at the bottom. Especially if I'm tanked up at the time.
Your not understanding my point, or I'm not putting it across well. The CPS will take (if it proves to be the case) that it wasn't the direct impact from the accused car that caused the death of the children when deciding on a sentence.
I'm not making excuses for him or trying to find reasons that he is not at fault.
Of course they will. It makes not one iota of difference if it was the actual impact of the Range Rover that killed the kids, or the resulting impact of the Previa leaving the road, the fact remains that the accident, and thus resulting deaths, was caused by the Range Rover hitting the Previa (if it is indeed proven that it was the Range Rover at fault). The point at which they were actually killed is irrelevent, they died as a result of the accident.
As you all know I own a Previa and they aren't exactly lightweight, the impact must have been massive to punt one off the road
I hope this piece of **** gets the book thrown at him, it make my blood boil that these people can go around thinking they can do as they please. It's exactly as Fox said, this is what happens when you give young Chav types more money than they know what to do with.
Scum.
Last edited:
I agree with this sensible post and also with PMKeates. While the footballer may be entirely at fault, it might not be as black and white as that - yet most here are assuming he is, and jumping on the bandwagon which is disappointing to see
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Sensible post, are you honestly being serious? Could you actually point out one bit of sense in it?
Excuses for killing children 101
1) I didn't have any insurance but thought I did so that's not my fault.
2) I only clipped the car, it's not my fault it left the road and killed two of the occupants.
3) I only had a pint or two of Stella, I wasn't drunk even though I was over the legal limit for driving. The law is wrong, I am right.
If I put the number of rolleyes in this post that Mr LH's post deserves it would crash the server.
So you honestly can't see a difference between believing your insurance covers you to drive the car in question, and someone who wilfully and knowingly drives without insurance. You can't see a difference between possibly being only marginally and inadvertently over the limit, and being knowingly well over it.
People are wrong to jump to conclusions, that is all we are saying. If you were up in court facing jail, you would want to get a fair hearing and so would I.
Send him to jail for life, completely ruin his career by force feeding him lard until he has a heart condition. Foircing him to work in some crappy dead end job.
Or give me 20 minutes alone in a room with him, a cheesegrater, some acid and a blowtorch.
Or give me 20 minutes alone in a room with him, a cheesegrater, some acid and a blowtorch.
This is the sort of post more deserving of the rolleyes...
It is not rape if you shout surprise.
Completely agree with this (and Leadhead).I agree with this sensible post and also with PMKeates. While the footballer may be entirely at fault, it might not be as black and white as that - yet most here are assuming he is, and jumping on the bandwagon which is disappointing to see
Whilst it looks like Luke McCormick is guilty, we should wait for the full facts before jumping to conclusions.
If it turns out that he was way over the limit / driving recklessly and the other driver was in no way at fault then I'll berate him myself but until that happens perhaps we should take a more considered approach.
That has been proved, being found guilty of that is a formality.
What conclusions have people jumped to exactly (bar the keyboard warriors)? That he is guilty drink driving scum and should be punished? He has been arrested and charged under the offence, this is evidence enough that these thoughts and opinions are justified.
He was notably over the limit well over an hour into his journey, and well over the time it took to get from there to a police station and have proper readings taken. Given the time it takes for the body to process alcohol, he will have been "way over the limit" at some point in his journey!
He managed to hit (and force off the road) another (VERY heavy) car, on a three lane straight road, at a time of the day and week where the traffic volume was stupendously low. If that isn't reckless, then I'd hate to see what is!
And perhaps we should give him our condolences whilst we are at it?
