Re: Girl, 11, comes within inch of death as 'drink driver' slams BMW into her bedroom

Brian Whitehead wrote:
On 18 Dec, 11:18, NM <never.ope...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Brian Whitehead wrote:

Odd that nobody has, don't you think? With a single exception, which
was quickly shouted down, the response on here has been "throw the
book at the driver for driving whilst pissed, and throw it at him
again for running away". So that's another little Duhg theory that
bites the dust.
Not the way I saw it, however don't let your lack of english
comprehension get in the way of a good rant.

OK, let's have a look, shall we? You said "Aah! The fight or flee
reflex, are you suggesting he gets extra
punishment because his survival instinct took over whilst he was
pissed?

Not saying he shouldn't get *** on anyway for DiC."

In other words, you thought that whilst he should be punished for the
drink driving offence, he should not receive extra punishment for
running away. Do you agree that my rewording is a fair summary of
your stated position? If so, let's call this "proposition A".

I said "throw the book at the driver for driving whilst pissed, and
throw it at him again for running away". In other words, I said that
he should be punished for drink driving, and that he should receive
extra punishment for running away. Can we agree on that also? If so,
let's call this "proposition B".

Now, my English comprehension skills may well be feeble, but I do
believe that proposition A is not the same as proposition B. Perhaps
you disagree - if so do please explain why.

OK, Lets start form the beginning, I'll try no to use too much joined up thinking as I don't want to confuse you.

Firstly if you inspect my post I never said he should be treated lieniently for DiC.

Given AIUI we are dealing here with a normally responsible company director and not some chav in a stolen car, in order to hold down that job he must have a modicum of intelligence so it must occur to him that it would take the police moments to trace the driver.

Now if he had run away, hid, made his way to a place of safety, then tried some bull*** like reporting his car stolen or the like and attempted a false alibi then I would agree with you he is a cowardly *** who ought to get additional crap for that as well, but that is not what happened.

Humans have developed a response system over millenia, far before any sort of civilisation like that with which we are now familliar, we have developed what's known as a "Fight or flee" reflex, this is automatic and cuts in, invarious degrees, whenever there is a conflict arousing, the adrenelin levels rise and the body prepares for action, this could be in a quite minor way, when having a confrontation with a work colleague for example and is controllable, this is commonly referred to as stress.

Now take a severe stress situation like this, from the pictures it's unlikley the driver could see into the room and even if he could he probably would not have been able to see the child as apparantly she was shielded by the wardrobe. I doubt if he even tried. What probably happened was the driver suddenly faced with an extremly stressful situation, at the same time knowing he was wrong because of the drink, panicked, his flee response took over and he legged it. If this is the case I don't think "extra" punishment is correct, millenia of instinct cannot be undone that easily.

The likley outcome (and I'm guessing here) was the police easily found him somewhere locally (he may even have held his hands up) he surely would have done anyway once his adrenaline levels normalised and rational thinking returned.

Next I posthulated this theory, you come back with all the 'coward' accusations, then you cite the lone voice of dissent, IIRC there were several others who commented along the lines I did and I nor any of them ever said he should not be punished for DiC.

Prove he tried to avoid capture then engineer his way out of the ***, then I'm with you.



More Duhg suppositions. You'll be saying next that Miles Cooper was a
motorist - oh, wait, you already did.
You are as guilty as he is of interpreting things to suit your agenda.

No, as the above proves, I am guilty of nothing of the sort.

Of course not.
.