Ceaseless Change Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 My point is that paper doesn't affect how people actually drive. The same lad could have driven at 30 and not crashed with no licence and insurance, and he could have had a full licence and insurance and drove at 60+ and crashed. Someone explain how 2 bits of paper actually physically stops you driving like a knob and crashing?? I don't think it does. And many people have proved it for me. I agree again he shouldn't have been driving . As a result of his choice to drive sadly a young person died, but the same choice could also have had zero consequences. You've wasted all this breath just to make the point that sometimes people driving without a license don't crash, and sometimes people driving with a license do. and that it COULD (but didn't) have turned out that nobody died, in an alternate universe or whatever? Why exactly? Please tell me there was a point in there that was actually helpful in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) Because others seem to think if a licence and insurance was present it wouldn't have happened. I never said I was trying to help so why assume I was? I'm just arguing that the paperwork side isn't relevant in real terms regarding this tragedy Edited November 28, 2014 by WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Because others seem to think if a licence and insurance was present it wouldn't have happened. I never said I was trying to help so why assume I was Fair point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Because others seem to think if a licence and insurance was present it wouldn't have happened. I never said I was trying to help so why assume I was? I'm just arguing that the paperwork side isn't relevant in real terms regarding this tragedy It's not a fair point, not at all. It's fundamentally relevant. The lack of paperwork indicates criminal intent. It is what turns this from tragic teenage hijinks in to criminally reckless stupidity. How can you not see that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Put it another way, you are basically saying that his sentence should not be any different, if he had actually been legal to drive and insured. Because if the paperwork is irrelevant, why should it impact sentencing? But I assume you can see how dumb that is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Because others seem to think if a licence and insurance was present it wouldn't have happened. And finally, just to ram home how daft this is - please quote someone, anyone, who actually said this. That just by being licensed and insured this would not have happened. Can't? Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Because others seem to think if a licence and insurance was present it wouldn't have happened. I never said I was trying to help so why assume I was? I'm just arguing that the paperwork side isn't relevant in real terms regarding this tragedy It's not a fair point, not at all. It's fundamentally relevant. The lack of paperwork indicates criminal intent. It is what turns this from tragic teenage hijinks in to criminally reckless stupidity. How can you not see that? driving an overloaded vehicle, with excess passengers for it's rating is also criminal intent. and that had far more impact on events than 2 bits of paper. if you actually read correctly i didn't say that having the 2 bits of paper would have stopped this ( my point exactly ) or that anybody else said it would, i said others seem to think it wouldn't have happened and was a significant factor, perhaps i should have said wouldn't have made a significant difference. people are concentrating, in my view, on a point that had nothing to do with the physics of the accident except that he shouldn't have been driving, and i agree he shouldn't have been. but if he should have been driving because he had a licence and insurance, he still shouldn't have been driving and overloaded vehicle, and on top of that at speed. the extra weight/mass of the vehicle along with the speed were the main factors, inexperience didn't help i agree and may have been the last straw but experience or lack of can be had with or without paperwork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Put it another way, you are basically saying that his sentence should not be any different, if he had actually been legal to drive and insured. Because if the paperwork is irrelevant, why should it impact sentencing? But I assume you can see how dumb that is. NO, it's you that is saying that and interpreting it into something else. I agree with you and others on the site that the Court of the land found him guilty of a criminal charge and this was the appropriate thing to do. My interpretation from WTF was that 'HE THOUGHT' that others seem to think that if a licence and insurance was present it wouldn't have happened. I agree with his comment just mentioned, although also acknowledge and accept your comment about who actually quoted this and to be honest, there's a mass of previous pages that things have been said that and hard to follow snippets of info, but I do edge on your side as I'm presuming that you've checked the rest out and no-one actually stated that. I do disagree with your comment that the accident was caused by criminal intent although I am not an advocate and would be happy to hear from John Wright on this without pulling him into other areas of this topic. Right or wrong for either one of us matters not to me (from a yahoo moment), but I would be content in knowing the correct interpretation. If you are correct, then I would fully agree with you but can't do so without confirmation first. Please understand this. John Wright, if you're able, can you answer the following questions to confirm things one way or another please. (1) could you clarify the meaning of criminal intent (2) does this apply to the driver of the vehicle in this case Thank you. edited and added - (from a yahoo moment) as without it implies a lack of care Edited November 29, 2014 by manxy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 So you're saying, if you ignore all the factors that explain why he came to be driving a too full car too fast on the wrong road in the wrong way, then it just boils down to physics.Sherlock you are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Manxy, he had obvious criminal intent to drive illegally. I am not claiming he intended to kill anyone, equally obviously he did not. But that is less important. When you take one action, with criminal intent, and other things result from that even if you didn't intend those consequences, you are still held criminally responsible in almost all cases. It's called the eggshell principle. If you punch someone in a criminal act of assault, and that person unbeknown to you has a neurological condition which means even a light blow could be deadly, and they do in fact die, you will be charged with manslaughter at minimum, and not merely assault. You didn't intend to kill them, but you did kill them. So, tough. Jail time. Edited November 29, 2014 by Ceaseless Change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 So you're saying, if you ignore all the factors that explain why he came to be driving a too full car too fast on the wrong road in the wrong way, then it just boils down to physics. Sherlock you are not. Why are you again saying the above? I AM NOT SAYING, 'if you ignore all the factors that explain why he came to be driving a too full car too fast on the wrong road in the wrong way, then it just boils down to physics.' because this is what YOU ARE SAYING - not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Manxy, he had obvious criminal intent to drive illegally. I am not claiming he intended to kill anyone, equally obviously he did not. But that is less important. When you take one action, with criminal intent, and other things result from that even if you didn't intend those consequences, you are still held criminally responsible in almost all cases. It's called the eggshell principle. If you punch someone in a criminal act of assault, and that person unbeknown to you has a neurological condition which means even a light blow could be deadly, and they do in fact die, you will be charged with manslaughter at minimum, and not merely assault. You didn't intend to kill them, but you did kill them. So, tough. Jail time. i agree the crash was an end result of the innitial criminal intent to drive illegally in the many ways it was done in this case, followed by the actual criminal actions of doing so. but there was never any 'intent' to crash, it was a by product, facillitated by the original actions. yes he was held liable for it and rightly so. but other than the overloading and perhaps the speed ( it was over any limit or deemed dangerous ) he could ( as in might have been ) been in exactly the same possiton legally at the PAPERWORK level. so with all the other factors ( overloading and speed ) identical the crash was still on the cards. Edited November 29, 2014 by WTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 So you're saying, if you ignore all the factors that explain why he came to be driving a too full car too fast on the wrong road in the wrong way, then it just boils down to physics. Sherlock you are not. Why are you again saying the above? I AM NOT SAYING, 'if you ignore all the factors that explain why he came to be driving a too full car too fast on the wrong road in the wrong way, then it just boils down to physics.' because this is what YOU ARE SAYING - not me. I was talking to WTF, not you It's him that is saying that the fact that he didn't have the paperwork is "irrelevant". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceaseless Change Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) i agree the crash was an end result of the innitial criminal intent to drive illegally in the many ways it was done in this case, followed by the actual criminal actions of doing so. but there was never any 'intent' to crash, it was a by product, facillitated by the original actions. yes he was held liable for it and rightly so. but other than the overloading and perhaps the speed ( it was over any limit or deemed dangerous ) he could ( as in might have been ) been in exactly the same possiton legally at the PAPERWORK level. so with all the other factors ( overloading and speed ) identical the crash was still on the cards. COULD have been, but not as LIKELY to have been. You seem confused about why exactly we even have licenses.... There is a link, you know, between being licensed to drive, and not driving like an idiot..... That's kind of the entire bloody point. Edited November 29, 2014 by Ceaseless Change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Manxy, he had obvious criminal intent to drive illegally. I am not claiming he intended to kill anyone, equally obviously he did not. But that is less important. When you take one action, with criminal intent, and other things result from that even if you didn't intend those consequences, you are still held criminally responsible in almost all cases. It's called the eggshell principle. If you punch someone in a criminal act of assault, and that person unbeknown to you has a neurological condition which means even a light blow could be deadly, and they do in fact die, you will be charged with manslaughter at minimum, and not merely assault. You didn't intend to kill them, but you did kill them. So, tough. Jail time. From your comment, I can see your reasoning with regards having criminal intent to drive illegally. He should have known that being a provisional driver, that he was breaking the law 'in at least the number of passengers' and possibly whether he was accompanied by an adult of 21 years and over. There will likely be other areas not mentioned, but restrict them to two to acknowledge your point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.