Re: Killer motorist gets jail and ban.

"Tony Dragon" <tony.dragon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:FaGdnfggZePWZ3PVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@xxxxxxxxx
Doug wrote:
On 9 Oct, 18:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Doug" <jag...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:4a1977e6-a2a5-48ff-aab3-3fb7e65f07c6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 8 Oct, 17:35, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doug wrote:
This is a bit more like it but still not enough. A lifetime driving
ban would have been more appropriate. Hopefully this example will make
other motorists drive more carefully in future. Incidentally, the car
mounted the pavement to kill the man and his dog.
As always, Doug destroys his own propoganda.
You are wrong yet again. Do you think she would have got as much
punishment if she had not been drinking and drugging before mounting
the pavement?
Maybe not. But I'm sure you would be the first to demand that drink or drugs
should count as aggravating circumstances, and therefore require a stiffer
sentence. You can't have it both ways.

There are many reasons why drivers loose control and kill people, not
just drink and drunks. Since the end result is the same what
difference does it make which? Whether its a mobile phone, eating a
sandwich, falling asleep, distracted by a conversation, road rage,
speeding, looking at a satnav...

why should there be little or no punishment for one and not for
another? Is there any excuse for killing someone with a car?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.


The point you missed went that way --->

I was thinking of a suitable response. You've done it for me.

.

Loading