Goalie charged

Lead_Head · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:20

dirtydog said:
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.

At least someone can see sense!

dirtydog · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:22

paradigm said:
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!

It may well have been reckless but we don't know yet. You apparently are privy to some knowledge the rest of us aren't...?

He was driving a two tonne Range Rover himself so it is not surprising he was able to have such an effect on another vehicle.

paradigm · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:25

dirtydog said:
It may well have been reckless but we don't know yet. You apparently are privy to some knowledge the rest of us aren't...?

Not knowledge that "the rest of us aren't" in possesion of, just common sense that a select few people in this thread seem devoid of.

He will have had TWO entire free lanes, plus the hard shoulder in which to get around this other vehicle on the road, at 05:45 on a Sunday, that stretch of road would have been quieter than open day at the morgue.

If he couldn't get past another vehicle in the space equivalent to that of three more lanes, he wasn't fit to be on the road.

pitchfork · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:30

dirtydog said:
This is the sort of post more deserving of the rolleyes...

Why?
Sorry but drink driving is an absolute disgrace in itself, but when you kill someone else it's a whole different kettle of fish. And this guy has ended the lives of two young kids with years ahead of them.
He should be shot.

Have you ever had someone die at the hands of a drunk driver? I doubt it if you can have the kind of attitude.

[TW]Fox · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:30

pitchfork said:
Have you ever had someone die at the hands of a drunk driver? I doubt it if you can have the kind of attitude.

If you have then that unfortunately removes your ability to hold a rational and impartial opinion on the matter.

dirtydog · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:32

paradigm said:
Not knowledge that "the rest of us aren't" in possesion of, just common sense that a select few people in this thread seem devoid of.

He will have had TWO entire free lanes, plus the hard shoulder in which to get around this other vehicle on the road, at 05:45 on a Sunday, that stretch of road would have been quieter than open day at the morgue.

If he couldn't get past another vehicle in the space equivalent to that of three more lanes, he wasn't fit to be on the road.

So you admit you are simply assuming what happened.

dirtydog · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:34

pitchfork said:
Why?
Sorry but drink driving is an absolute disgrace in itself, but when you kill someone else it's a whole different kettle of fish. And this guy has ended the lives of two young kids with years ahead of them.
He should be shot.

Have you ever had someone die at the hands of a drunk driver? I doubt it if you can have the kind of attitude.

I don't endorse drink driving, but nor do I think people guilty of it should be subjected to barbaric torture such as you ridiculously suggest. Clearly he did not set out thinking, I am going to kill two little kids today.

Dogbreath · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:34

dirtydog said:
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.

Perhaps the police are jumping to conclusions by charging him with the offence and not the driver of the Previa?

Ordinarily I would agree with you on principal, the information in the press is often biased or incomplete. In this case unless all the press are blatantly lying w.r.t the dangerous driving charges, lack of insurance and drink driving, Mr McCormick is a grade A **** who richly deserves the punishment he will almost certainly receive.

paradigm · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:35

No, I'm openly admitting that I have read the news sources, and can compile independant thought based on common sense rather than an obsession with sparking an argumentative debate.

As has already been said, he WOULDN'T have been CHARGED with DEATH by DANGEROUS DRIVING unless the CPS thought that it would acheive a result, as it is a very difficult charge to prove.

dirtydog said:
I don't endorse drink driving, but nor do I think people guilty of it should be subjected to barbaric torture such as you ridiculously suggest. Clearly he did not set out thinking, I am going to kill two little kids today.

He made a CONCIOUS decision to get behind the wheel of a car he was uninsured of, whilst knowing he would have been over the limit. This, whilst not an act of agression in itself, shows massive disregard for the life of other people he may well interact with during his journey.

This alone makes the guy scum.

DRZ · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:37

paradigm said:
Not knowledge that "the rest of us aren't" in possesion of, just common sense that a select few people in this thread seem devoid of.

He will have had TWO entire free lanes, plus the hard shoulder in which to get around this other vehicle on the road, at 05:45 on a Sunday, that stretch of road would have been quieter than open day at the morgue.

If he couldn't get past another vehicle in the space equivalent to that of three more lanes, he wasn't fit to be on the road.

Not trying to excuse the driver, but to throw up a possibility - I have been in Lane 1 of a veeery quiet motorway and noticed a car up ahead going slower than me and have moved across to lane 2. As I got near to the car it was clear that the guy was asleep or drunk because he was swerving about all over the place.

I moved over to lane 3 and passed safely, but the Previa could well have been in this sort of "shape" and moved into the path of the Range Rover. Drunk or not, if that happened he should be absolved of causing death by dangerous driving.

This is why we should all just wait for the full facts rather than immediately moving to brain-dead mob vigilante justice...

Slinwagh · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:38

Dogbreath said:
Perhaps the police are jumping to conclusions by charging him with the offence and not the driver of the Previa?

That doesn't get around the drink driving charge. The sample given on the intoxiometer is evidential.

[TW]Fox · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:39

DRZ said:
Not trying to excuse the driver, but to throw up a possibility - I have been in Lane 1 of a veeery quiet motorway and noticed a car up ahead going slower than me and have moved across to lane 2. As I got near to the car it was clear that the guy was asleep or drunk because he was swerving about all over the place.

I moved over to lane 3 and passed safely, but the Previa could well have been in this sort of "shape" and moved into the path of the Range Rover. Drunk or not, if that happened he should be absolved of causing death by dangerous driving.

Unless the Previa did this whilst travelling at what, 40mph, how would there have been a high enough speed differential to 'punt' the Previa off the road unless Mr Bling was traveling at 900mph?

dirtydog · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:51

Dogbreath said:
Perhaps the police are jumping to conclusions by charging him with the offence and not the driver of the Previa?

Ordinarily I would agree with you on principal, the information in the press is often biased or incomplete. In this case unless all the press are blatantly lying w.r.t the dangerous driving charges, lack of insurance and drink driving, Mr McCormick is a grade A **** who richly deserves the punishment he will almost certainly receive.

I would hope that the police/CPS know something we don't, but I never assume that because someone is charged with a given crime (whether motoring or any other kind), he must be guilty. The police can and do get it wrong sometimes as we all know.

I will be happy to condemn the footballer's actions as much as anyone else, if he is indeed guilty as charged. Although I would stop short at the sort of vengeful acts some would like to see.

dirtydog · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:52

[TW]Fox;11851954 said:
Unless the Previa did this whilst travelling at what, 40mph, how would there have been a high enough speed differential to 'punt' the Previa off the road unless Mr Bling was traveling at 900mph?

Why would there need to be a speed difference? Have you seen the pit manoeuvre?

paradigm · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:56

dirtydog said:
Why would there need to be a speed difference? Have you seen the pit manoeuvre?

So, you've now gone from the extreme of it being an "accident", to him executing a dangerous, but precise manoeuver whilst travelling at motorway speeds?

Either way, reckless non?

dirtydog · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:59

paradigm said:
So, you've now gone from the extreme of it being an "accident", to him executing a dangerous, but precise manoeuver whilst travelling at motorway speeds?

Either way, reckless non?

Nice straw man. I simply used the pit manoeuvre as one example of how excessive speed is not essential to budge another car off the road, especially in a two tonne Range Rover.

DRZ · 9 Jun 2008 at 13:59

[TW]Fox;11851954 said:
Unless the Previa did this whilst travelling at what, 40mph, how would there have been a high enough speed differential to 'punt' the Previa off the road unless Mr Bling was traveling at 900mph?

Remember my thread about my mate getting batted off the road by an HGV clipping his rear end? He wasn't travelling that much faster than the lorry! It doesn't seem to take much to cause a car to leave the road really - how many times have you seen American cops PIT a car causing it to slam into the reservation or a ditch on those worlds most ridiculous video type shows?

Majago · 9 Jun 2008 at 14:17

paradigm said:
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!

He's hit another car in the middle of a 3 lane road. We don't know the circumstances of what each car was doing there. For all we know the Previa could have pulled out to pass someone and the RR hit the back of him. The size and weight of the RR compared to the Previa would surely cause a substantially bigger shunt than many other cars.

edit: it would appear that dirtydog has brought this point up already. and see you're already 'debating' this one.

paradigm said:
And perhaps we should give him our condolences whilst we are at it?

Keep your rolleyes.

As you know full well I didn't suggest any sympathy for him just that people thought a bit more before jumping on the 'what a scumbad he deserves to die' bandwagon.

FTM · 9 Jun 2008 at 14:25

he shouldnt have driven after drinking..simple as....

even if he wasnt miles over the limit he had still consumed enough to impair his driving and to dull his reactions..whether he's misjudged the speed of it as he comes up behind it or mistimed an overtaking manouvre..

a little over or a lot over..it makes not a jot of difference to the people involved in the accident

Jonnycoupe · 9 Jun 2008 at 14:27

dirtydog said:
I would hope that the police/CPS know something we don't, but I never assume that because someone is charged with a given crime (whether motoring or any other kind), he must be guilty. The police can and do get it wrong sometimes as we all know.

How the hell could they possibly know any less than the posters in this thread? Watching Big brother highlights instead of reading the Sun this morning?