Re: A driver high on crystal meth left two women terribly maimed. He will be free in just TWO years
- From: Doug <jagmad@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 02:53:41 -0800 (PST)
On 1 Feb, 09:29, Fod <friendsofde...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 1, 8:45 am, Doug <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Nope he was clearly blaming me, the victim, as usual. Where anywhere
On 31 Jan, 10:10, "Gizmo." <To...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> "Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0ce80f20-5066-4e0a-819e-69a2ed80956a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
BTW I am surprised that the many motorists here have not used their
usual excuse of blaming the victims already, for recklessly getting in
the way of the car. Still, give them time.
Here's your next task:
Post just one example to back up your ridiculous statement above.
Well I have recently been blameed by Brimstone for being a victim hit
by a car. He maintained I could ave avoided being rammed unexpectedly.
"By watching what's going on around you."
No, he said that it might have been possible to avoid the accident by
being more aware and having better prediction of the actions of
others. Rather than just being bloody minded about right of way.
does he blame the motorist who rammed me?
How many more do you need?
There are numerous examples where vulnerable victims were blamed by
motorists here on this NG.
Go on, post some for closer scrutiny.
====================
Guy Chapman wrote:
|| <JNug...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
||| Citation please...
|| Peter Williams, a 22-year-old cyclist, was killed in January 2000
|| after a driver hit him with her car's wing mirror. He fell under
the
|| wheels of another car.
|| The driver admitted driving without due care and attention but was
|| fined just £200. She was not banned from driving despite a history
of
|| offences and reaching the 12 point limit.
You said she had "killed someone". Your cited story (even if true)
does not
support that extravagant (and perhaps libellous - have a care) turn of
phrase - clearly, she did NOT "kill someone" (were there any evidence
to
support that charge, she'd have been charged with CDBDD).
It simply does not do to assume that whenever someone dies, someone
else
must be to blame, does it?
Now, DWDC&A is a minor (even though endorsable) offence. Perhaps the
woman
was too self-effacing in admitting the offence and maybe a half-
competent
lawyer could have got her acquitted.
|| Phillip Judge, Chairman of
|| the Bench in Cheltenham, said a driving ban would prevent her from
|| taking her children the two miles to school and therefore cause too
|| much hardship.
Perfactly reasonable for a DWDC&A offence, particularly when the
charge is
(unnecessarily?) admitted.
=======================
What usually gets argued is
that each case needs to be looked at on its merits and default blameWhereas the EU, unlike UK, wants to remove blame from vulnerable
( like you want) is a bad thing.
victims regardless.
Nope. It should be against the user of a dangerous machine in a public
The usual classic one is where the victim
is blamed for daring to step onto a public road. "Yes, it was the
fault of the stupid child who stepped into the road without looking"
from Adrain for example.
Your rather obsessed with blame; mainly because you think it should be
on the driver regardless of facts I guess.
place over which they do not have full control and as a consequence
kill or injure a vulnerable road user while sustaining no injury
themself..
The only way the crash, not euphemistic accident, couldn't haoppen at
Everyone else would rather
the accident didn't happen at all; you however wouldn't care as long
as you feel the driver is punished to a suitable degree ( in your case
I think you would only be happy if a lynch mob hung the driver from
the nearest lamppost)
all is if there were no dangerous machines being used in public places
by fallible human beings.
Of course. Why should adults be allowed to kill children and then
In some cases the child would be the cause of the accident. Does
that means the child should never be to blame?
blame the children for their deaths?
Which is what the EU wants.
If its a young child
and isn't being supervised properly by a parent then surely some of
the blame should be on the negligent parent? Its all shades of grey
Doug; you did seem to be getting the concept but sadly you are now
back to the simplistic black and white "the driver is always wrong"
view of the world.
The killers, difficult in the case of unmanned machines but not
If a child wonders onto an army firing range is the army to blame for
the childs death? If the child swims in a loch and drowns due to
undercurrents is the council to blame? If a child enters a field and
gets gored by a bull is the farmer to blame? If a child plays in an
abandoned fridge in a garden and gets trapped inside and suffocates
who's to blame then?
difficult when adults are, say, toting guns or failing to control a
dangerous machine in a public placed.
The only reason this lack of accountability for killing people is
allowed to continue is because our democracy is dominated by your
victim blaming car mob.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Veggies a "perversion of nature"
- Next by Date: Re: Tailgating terrorist!
- Previous by thread: Re: A driver high on crystal meth left two women terribly maimed. He will be free in just TWO years
- Next by thread: Re: A driver high on crystal meth left two women terribly maimed. He will be free in just TWO years
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
