[TW]Fox;11863081 said:
It another thing where it seems that the opinion is formed on the result of the accident rather than the crime.
If there was a barrier on the motorway and everyone survived I bet the public reaction would be very different..
Goalie charged
- Thread starter Raumarik
- Start date
It another thing where it seems that the opinion is formed on the result of the accident rather than the crime.
If there was a barrier on the motorway and everyone survived I bet the public reaction would be very different..
if people loose there inhabitions enough to want to get in there car and drive when drinking ,then maybe they should stop drinking
its the same sort of people who go out and blame drink on them kicking someones head in.
ive been in absolute states many a time but never got in my car and never started a fight(ok well maybe once but id of done that when sober too) i can say that nearly all my mates are the same too.
its the same sort of people who go out and blame drink on them kicking someones head in.
ive been in absolute states many a time but never got in my car and never started a fight(ok well maybe once but id of done that when sober too) i can say that nearly all my mates are the same too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
You clearly do not deserve to posses a licence, if you can not control your actions after drink you have a problem - either do not drink at all or do not have a licence.
[TW]Fox;11863045 said:
There should always be justice for actions that cause death, somenbodys past record and standing will of course be taken into account. Of course the action of killing someone and it being your fault (no matter what a saint you are) should always be heavily punished.
Whether you meant it or not has no bearing on the matter, if your actions caused a death that is it you are guilty of the crime of killing somebody. Are you actually saying that if you killed someone 'during a hoon' that they should not face jail ?would you also think that pedophiles should be let of as they can not help it ?
It's quite simple really. If you can't be trusted and wish to shirk responsibility for having the opportunity to drive after drink or drugs then you deserve everything you get and god help the rest of us. Dirtydog's point is poor at best and any respect there was has gone. So, you get drunk and do stupid things like drive a car, which might kill someone, but not mean to, but it happens, but I didn't mean to, it was the drink, which I knowingly and voluntarily consumed, knowing I could/would get in the car and drive...
What a plonker.
What a plonker.
'pushing on a bit' could cause a fatal accident... and you wouldn't even have the defence that you were drunk, so didn't know what you were doing. You are saying you choose to drive that way, even when stone cold sober? Yet you take the moral high ground over drink drivingIronic no?
The point is when driving whilst ****** you lose all good judgement, vision is impared and reaction times go out the window. Far more likely to result in a fatal accident than somebody 'pushing on a bit' whilst still in full control of thier senses.
But I do accept Simon's and Fox's point that doing what many of us do on the roads can lead to a similar outcome, and I accept that the punishment would be similar, and indeed justified
I'm just saying that being drunk is far more likely to end in a fatality than just putting your foot down a bit whilst sober....
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I wasn't actually saying anything I was making a point to Drexel that its not always as simple as he thinks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
[TW]Fox;11863215 said:
Fair comment.
But if Drexel did kill someone in said situation he should be prosecuted for any crime he was committing - if that is dangerous driving etc then he is guilty of causing the death regardless of whether he had no intention of killing someone.
As I've already mentioned in this thread, he must have been driving for at least an hour or so before the accident to get to where he was from the wedding. It wasn't 'getting up in the morning' and driving, he set off at 4 something.
What defence would that be then?
"Sorry M'lud, I had ten pints of Stella but due to my feeble mind I didn't even realise I was drunk and thought I was in fact a driving god."
"Case dismissed!"
I don't think so. There is no defence whatsoever, either in law or in morals for driving whilst drunk. If you honestly can't tell you are drunk after drinking, then why on earth do you do it? Save the money and have a glass of water.
I think this mentality sums it up nicely and is the reason the roads are like they are.
Dogbreath, Drop it mate, your frankly ****ing in the wind on this one, not to mention REALLY hacking off anybody unfortunate enough to be closely affected by the actions of a drunk driver.
Anybody such as myself for example.
Anybody such as myself for example.
its exactly the same IMO. due to the unpredictable nature of driving (were not fortune tellers, we do not know whats around the next corner)
a drink driver gets in the car, his reactions/judgement are a bit impared. you get in the car, sober, but put your toe right down. due to the extra speed youre intentionally carrying, the distance you cover during your reaction time is greater, your judgement can be skewed by the urge to chase.
and if you one day wipe someone out whilst on a chase, do you expect to get completely branded as a child killer etc?
I don't think I'm making myself clear in this thread, obviously
I don't drink and drive now, and indeed I don't drink, period.
I think it is more of a moral defence to do stupid things when you are drunk, than to do stupid things when you are sober. I'm not saying that drunk drivers who cause accidents should get off scott free on account of being drunk.
Some here seem to think that driving dangerously while sober is somehow okay, which I find puzzling. If someone is 'pushing on' and kills someone, chances are they'll be charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
Anyone who chooses to break the driving laws and speed limits etc has little or no right to take the moral high ground WRT drink driving IMO.
Last edited:
some random stuff after reading this thread....
- it's so easy to be over the limit the following day after drinking night before even in moderation, wonder how many of us have been 1.5 times over limit and just not realized
- being over limit next day is impossible to judge, as you feel fine. Mind you, being a goalie he's gonna be a big lad that would take a lot of drink so he should have known
- driving a range rover sport does not make you a tool, unless of course, your just jealous, it's a nice motor (with genuine off road ability while being a decent luxo barge that handles)
- the previa could have been technically at fault, in which case wether over the limit or not the same result may of happened, who knows
- no insurance, don't understand this...
- 7 seater MPVs, a danger to life itself, why cram so many people in a small tin box
I REALLY feel sorry for the family who lost loved ones here, but so easy to see red when so many things we don't know until it goes to court ?. Drunk drivers IMO are scum, but being slightly over the limit next day would be a harsh way to spend 6 yrs in jail. (depending on wether accident was indeed his fault or not, manslaughter due to dangerous driving is worthy of jail)
I'm not defending him, and trust courts will sort out the real story..
- it's so easy to be over the limit the following day after drinking night before even in moderation, wonder how many of us have been 1.5 times over limit and just not realized
- being over limit next day is impossible to judge, as you feel fine. Mind you, being a goalie he's gonna be a big lad that would take a lot of drink so he should have known
- driving a range rover sport does not make you a tool, unless of course, your just jealous, it's a nice motor (with genuine off road ability while being a decent luxo barge that handles)
- the previa could have been technically at fault, in which case wether over the limit or not the same result may of happened, who knows
- no insurance, don't understand this...
- 7 seater MPVs, a danger to life itself, why cram so many people in a small tin box
I REALLY feel sorry for the family who lost loved ones here, but so easy to see red when so many things we don't know until it goes to court ?. Drunk drivers IMO are scum, but being slightly over the limit next day would be a harsh way to spend 6 yrs in jail. (depending on wether accident was indeed his fault or not, manslaughter due to dangerous driving is worthy of jail)
I'm not defending him, and trust courts will sort out the real story..
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,663
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
a bit?
I said that quite a few posts back.
A mate of mine pulled up at a junction, a speeding driver smacked into the back of him and he still suffers now.
It was his fault because he was over the limit and shouldn't be on the road.
abit can totally depend on what the reading was. has this been released?
if not you cannot comment on how much his reactions where impaired!