Boy, 15, admits causing crash in which five people died

Cold Fusion · 14 Dec 2017 at 13:03

Don't have much sympathy for any of them in that car, as others have said at 12 years old you should know getting into a car with 5 over people which is stolen is a bad thing to do.

I do hate when the media portray the death of participants of a crime to be a 'tragedy', a kid dying of a brain tumour is a tragedy, a kid dying in a crash in a stolen car is just an idiot.

Hope the driver gets a lengthy prison sentence.

Akagi · 14 Dec 2017 at 15:38

I honestly can't imagine how I would live with the fact that I had caused one persons death on my conscience. Let alone five...

gary996 · 14 Dec 2017 at 15:57

Chris Wilson said:
Personally I'd take all his major organs and three quarts of blood, whilst he's still alive, then burn both his remains and his eviscerations.

They should both have been euthanased after the trial.

I like it

Roland Butter · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:05

Orionaut said:
I expect he will be out by the time he is 18. You only do serious time in the UK if you do something really, really, bad like interrupting the treasuries revenue stream

Or, like Max Clifford getting a stonking 8 years for talking naive actresses into sucking him off in exchange for
an audition for a non-existant part in Dr. Who.

Vonhelmet · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:09

Roland Butter said:
Or, like Max Clifford getting a stonking 8 years for talking naive actresses into sucking him off in exchange for
an audition for a non-existant part in Dr. Who.

Including underage actresses. At least tell the whole story.

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:18

Roland Butter said:
Or, like Max Clifford getting a stonking 8 years for talking naive actresses into sucking him off in exchange for
an audition for a non-existant part in Dr. Who.

Vonhelmet said:
Including underage actresses. At least tell the whole story.

Multiple counts of preying on vulnerable and young people, essentially using their ambitions and naivety to trick them into performing sexual acts vs a kid who drove a stolen car and accidentally crashed it.

Are people comparing the result or the act?

Should attempted murderers get a more lenient sentence than people who accidentally kill someone through a car crash?

As far as i know, the kid hasn't received his sentence and people are already complaining it isn't harsh enough :/

Roland Butter · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:22

Avenged7Fold said:
Multiple counts of preying on vulnerable and young people, essentially using their ambitions and naivety to trick them into performing sexual acts vs a kid who drove a stolen car and accidentally crashed it.

Are people comparing the result or the act?

Should attempted murderers get a more lenient sentence than people who accidentally kill someone through a car crash?

As far as i know, the kid hasn't received his sentence and people are already complaining it isn't harsh enough :/

Obviously too difficult a comparison for you to grasp, is english not your native tongue ?

Simply put, this scrote will not get a lengthy jail sentence for killing 5 people, Clifford got 8 years for killing precisely no people

Akagi · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:25

I would much rather go to prison for 8 years than live the rest of my life knowing I'm responsible for the death of 5 people.

But I take your point.

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:28

Roland Butter said:
Obviously too difficult a comparison for you to grasp, is english not your native tongue ?

Simply put, this scrote will not get a lengthy jail sentence for killing 5 people, Clifford got 8 years for killing precisely no people

English isn't my first tongue, despite this it seems that my understanding of the language trumps yours as far as forum posts go..

It seems you failed to grasp my point and proved it on your reply.

Intent plays a role in the liability for the crime, as well as circumstance. We don't know what the sentence is but it may be less than Clifford because we don't count bodies and dish out punishments based solely on that. It was an accident and he is a minor, so he will get less of a sentence than say if he went out and killed 5 people through murder.

Caracus2k · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:44

Avenged7Fold said:
It was an accident

No it wasn't an accident it was a foreseeable outcome of some reckless criminal activity....

An accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.

Personally I agree the law is making an *** of itself in consistency when it comes to sentencing with regards to incidents like this in general...

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:45

It was quite literately a car accident. I am not excusing what he did, just saying that the sentencing will reflect the circumstances rather than just be the equivalent of murdering 5 people.

Caracus2k · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:48

Avenged7Fold said:
It was quite literately a car accident. I am not excusing what he did, just saying that the sentencing will reflect the circumstances rather than just be the equivalent of murdering 5 people.

It was quite literally not an accident.... for someome arguing their command of the English language earlier I can only suggest you go look up the definition.

Police quite deliberately use the phrase road traffic collision and not accident for this very reason.

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:51

Car Accident. A car accident, also referred to as a “traffic collision,” or a “motor vehicle accident,” occurs when a motor vehicle strikes or collides another vehicle, a stationary object, a pedestrian, or an animal.

That's what google says.

Point still stands regardless of what you want to call it.

Vonhelmet · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:53

Caracus2k said:
It was quite literally not an accident.... for someome arguing their command of the English language earlier I can only suggest you go look up the definition.

Police quite deliberately use the phrase road traffic collision and not accident for this very reason.

The police can call it what they like, and I totally understand why they dislike referring to incidents like this as “accidents” but like it or not that is quite common in the vernacular.

It’s an accident insofar as it was not intentional.

If you took your argument to its logical conclusion you’d never describe anything as an accident, as nigh everything is foreseeable to some extent.

Chris Wilson · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:54

Caracus2k said:
No it wasn't an accident it was a foreseeable outcome of some reckless criminal activity....

An accident is an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally.

Personally I agree the law is making an *** of itself in consistency when it comes to sentencing with regards to incidents like this in general...

This dreadful sounding incident is a probable good definition of a true accident:

"Two dead and seven injured as school bus is "cut in two" after being hit by train near Perpignan

Rescuers were going through the wreckage to free victims at a railway crossing Millas in southern France
Two people are dead and seven are seriously injured after a school bus was "cut in two" when it was hit by a train in Millas, France, it was reported.

Rescuers were going through the wreckage to free victims including children.

The horror crash occurred at a railway crossing between Perpignan and Prades in the Pyrénées-Orientales department in southern France.

The National Gendarmerie told France 3 TV that at least two people were killed and seven were seriously injured.

Witnesses said the bus was "cut in two" when it was hit by a regional TER train at the Saint-Féliu-d'Amont crossing, France Bleu reported."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/two-dead-seven-injured-after-11696357

As you say, the stealing of a car that is then driven into a tree, overloaded with minors and adults alike is a foreseeable event that should be bring serious consequences to its still living criminal occupants.

Caracus2k · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:56

Avenged7Fold said:
That's what google says.

Point still stands regardless of what you want to call it.

Its possible for car to be involved in an accident because something unintended and unexpected happens that results in the car crashing.

The circumstances at hand are different as it was a forseeavle outcome that an inexperienced, young driver in a stolen car driving in a reckless manner would crash.

The police use the word collision to avoid showing any prejudice as to the circumstances and whether the collision was forseeable and readily avoidable by any party.

So sorry you will have to try again....

Vonhelmet · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:58

Chris Wilson said:
This dreadful sounding incident is a probable good definition of a true accident:

"Two dead and seven injured as school bus is "cut in two" after being hit by train near Perpignan

Rescuers were going through the wreckage to free victims at a railway crossing Millas in southern France
Two people are dead and seven are seriously injured after a school bus was "cut in two" when it was hit by a train in Millas, France, it was reported.

Rescuers were going through the wreckage to free victims including children.

The horror crash occurred at a railway crossing between Perpignan and Prades in the Pyrénées-Orientales department in southern France.

The National Gendarmerie told France 3 TV that at least two people were killed and seven were seriously injured.

Witnesses said the bus was "cut in two" when it was hit by a regional TER train at the Saint-Féliu-d'Amont crossing, France Bleu reported."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/two-dead-seven-injured-after-11696357

As you say, the stealing of a car that is then driven into a tree, overloaded with minors and adults alike is a foreseeable event that should be bring serious consequences to its still living criminal occupants.

The mirror said:
The back of the bus was hit by the train and the vehicle would have entered the crossing while the barriers were down, the France Bleu report added.

Accident, you say? It sounds like entering a level crossing while the barriers are down would have entirely foreseeable consequences.

Caracus2k · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:59

Vonhelmet said:
The police can call it what they like, and I totally understand why they dislike referring to incidents like this as “accidents” but like it or not that is quite common in the vernacular.

It’s an accident insofar as it was not intentional.

If you took your argument to its logical conclusion you’d never describe anything as an accident, as nigh everything is foreseeable to some extent.

An accident has to be both unintentional and a largely unforseen incident which this incident was not.

The general public/media frequently use language in an innapropriate way especially when they are trying to excuse some reprehensible behaviour by saying the outcome of some reckless criminal activity was 'just an accident'.....

Avenged7Fold · 14 Dec 2017 at 16:59

Don't know why the term has got your hackles raised. By the definition of google, it was a car accident.

Regardless everything before losing control was done by decision, losing control and crashing it was a mistake. Why is this so incomprehensible.

I am not excusing his behaviour, you read far too much into it. I just say that he wont get sentenced like a murderer for the obvious reason that he is not a murderer.

Vonhelmet · 14 Dec 2017 at 17:03

Semantics aside, the sentencing will reflect that the act was unintentional. He’s been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, rather than murder. The sentences available for that charge reflect the lack of premeditated intent.