McRamFan Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 Firstly I shall answer the compliment 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> and yes it is mine 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> It is just something I write up each morning and they are all first drafts so sorry for all the spelling errors. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> While it is sense that drink driving can lead to death it doesn't prove premeditation and when someone is drunk sense unfortunately goes out of the window. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> I am not debating if the sentence is fair as I am not a judge and am not qualified to pass judgement. He had choice, and his decision would be to get in a car and drive. Assuming that he has the intellect to pass a driving test, he therefore has the intellect to know that the actions he is about to take are both dangerous, selfish and carry a very high risk that something could happen, especially as he would be driving on a motorway at high speed. His actions where premeditated, and those actions resulted in the death of 2 people. The Captain of the Concordia decided to sale the boat close to the island, sunk it and killed a lot of passengers, he is being tried for murder. Action, consequence, outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Hare Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Murder requires that intent to kill be established. Being stupid, selfish, ignorant, arrogant, etc doesn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 He had choice, and his decision would be to get in a car and drive. Assuming that he has the intellect to pass a driving test, he therefore has the intellect to know that the actions he is about to take are both dangerous, selfish and carry a very high risk that something could happen, especially as he would be driving on a motorway at high speed. His actions where premeditated, and those actions resulted in the death of 2 people. The Captain of the Concordia decided to sale the boat close to the island, sunk it and killed a lot of passengers, he is being tried for murder. Action, consequence, outcome. I have admitted that he definitely made the decision to drive drunk and that was all the things you list. However to say that it was murder is a misuse of the word. The action of driving was premeditated however the action of killing two people was not. Was it definite he would have hurt them? did he go out to hurt them? the answer is no in both cases sir, and because you're going round in circles making the same proposition except with more emotive language I'm going to stop stating this simple argument to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramexpat Posted May 28, 2012 Author Share Posted May 28, 2012 I have admitted that he definitely made the decision to drive drunk and that was all the things you list. However to say that it was murder is a misuse of the word. The action of driving was premeditated however the action of killing two people was not. Was it definite he would have hurt them? did he go out to hurt them? the answer is no in both cases sir, and because you're going round in circles making the same proposition except with more emotive language I'm going to stop stating this simple argument to you. Are you a defense lawyer by any chance 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Are you a defense lawyer by any chance 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> No just an 18 year old studying politics,philosophy and sociology at A level 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':P' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I have admitted that he definitely made the decision to drive drunk and that was all the things you list. However to say that it was murder is a misuse of the word. The action of driving was premeditated however the action of killing two people was not. Was it definite he would have hurt them? did he go out to hurt them? the answer is no in both cases sir, and because you're going round in circles making the same proposition except with more emotive language I'm going to stop stating this simple argument to you. Maybe you are right about the strict definition of murder, however it is at the very least Involuntary Manslaughter and should be treated as such, and I have to respectfully disagree that this is a simple argument. My opinion is that death caused by drink driving should be treated as homicide and the law should be changed to reflect this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Maybe you are right about the strict definition of murder, however it is at the very least Involuntary Manslaughter and should be treated as such, and I have to respectfully disagree that this is a simple argument. My opinion is that death caused by drink driving should be treated as homicide and the law should be changed to reflect this. I have got you down from murder to involuntary manslaughter that is a start. With manslaughter I am under the impression you have to have a motive to attack and harm them but not to kill them thus the killing was unintentional and an accident, thus Mcormick wouldn't qualify under this because there was no premeditated intention to hurt them thus it is negligence in the driving area. I don't believe it should be homocide, because often these people are ignorant, selfish, make mistakes, angry, depressed etc etc but often not evil and very rarely if ever is it premeditated. Murder for me has to always be premeditated otherwise it isn't murder in my view. If we gear ourselves towards an American justice system then we shall go even more backwards than where we are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Put it this way, in this country if you smash a window and you know there's a chance it could happen it's called being reckless and you still get locked up for criminal damage. So if McCormick drink drives knowing that there is a good chance he could kill someone, why isn't it taken in the same way as being reckless and causing criminal damage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 He had choice, and his decision would be to get in a car and drive. Assuming that he has the intellect to pass a driving test, he therefore has the intellect to know that the actions he is about to take are both dangerous, selfish and carry a very high risk that something could happen, especially as he would be driving on a motorway at high speed. His actions where premeditated, and those actions resulted in the death of 2 people. The Captain of the Concordia decided to sale the boat close to the island, sunk it and killed a lot of passengers, he is being tried for murder. Action, consequence, outcome. So you would want him sentenced to 25 years to life? I'd much rather see the deliberate/intentional criminals in jail for a long time than someone who's lived a law abiding life but f*cked up big time and made a massive mistake. The burglars, the violent, the rapists and the paedophiles who go out into the world to deliberately hurt people and feel no remorse. Is McCormick an animal? A bad person? A danger to society? Of course i dont know for sure, but i highly doubt it. Is giving him 25 years gunna bring deceased back? No, so giving him such a long sentence would just be for the satisfaction of those effected by his actions. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. He's had a long time to reflect on his actions, if he comes back into society and does some good, isnt that better than ruining another life from this incident by putting him in prison for 25 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 So you would want him sentenced to 25 years to life? I'd much rather see the deliberate/intentional criminals in jail for a long time than someone who's lived a law abiding life but f*cked up big time and made a massive mistake. The burglars, the violent, the rapists and the paedophiles who go out into the world to deliberately hurt people and feel no remorse. Is McCormick an animal? A bad person? A danger to society? Of course i dont know for sure, but i highly doubt it. Is giving him 25 years gunna bring deceased back? No, so giving him such a long sentence would just be for the satisfaction of those effected by his actions. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. He's had a long time to reflect on his actions, if he comes back into society and does some good, isnt that better than ruining another life from this incident by putting him in prison for 25 years? It is nice to see some sense 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRam Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I've not long ago read "Inside" a book by John Hoskison, a professional golfer who ran down and killed a cyclist whilst over the limit. His story is more of his life 'inside' but he doeswrite about how he feels about the actual accident. It was quite interesting. I'm not saying McCormick feels like John Hoskison does and only time will tell how he comes lives his life when he's out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I have got you down from murder to involuntary manslaughter that is a start. With manslaughter I am under the impression you have to have a motive to attack and harm them but not to kill them thus the killing was unintentional and an accident, thus Mcormick wouldn't qualify under this because there was no premeditated intention to hurt them thus it is negligence in the driving area. I don't believe it should be homocide, because often these people are ignorant, selfish, make mistakes, angry, depressed etc etc but often not evil and very rarely if ever is it premeditated. Murder for me has to always be premeditated otherwise it isn't murder in my view. If we gear ourselves towards an American justice system then we shall go even more backwards than where we are now. So you would want him sentenced to 25 years to life? I'd much rather see the deliberate/intentional criminals in jail for a long time than someone who's lived a law abiding life but f*cked up big time and made a massive mistake. The burglars, the violent, the rapists and the paedophiles who go out into the world to deliberately hurt people and feel no remorse. Is McCormick an animal? A bad person? A danger to society? Of course i dont know for sure, but i highly doubt it. Is giving him 25 years gunna bring deceased back? No, so giving him such a long sentence would just be for the satisfaction of those effected by his actions. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. He's had a long time to reflect on his actions, if he comes back into society and does some good, isnt that better than ruining another life from this incident by putting him in prison for 25 years? Homicide, Murder and Manslaughter explained: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/ First few lines from each: Murder Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person: of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);any reasonable creature (human being);in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;under the Queen's Peace;with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Definition of Homicide Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide. Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways: 1) killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact. YR: I said maybe. He could have avoided the whole issue if he had used common sense EKR: Yes it was a deliberate act of drinking then driving, therefore he has proven on this occassion that he is indeed a danger to society, and for which the punishment did not fit the crime. Should he have got 25 to life, no, however he should not be out just yet. As for the other groups that is a whole different set of opinions! I feel that society is going backwards when you can get in a car and are drunk, and if you get caught there is no appreciable difference than if you kill someone and then get caught. It is not an eye for an eye, it is a fact that the legal system is not robust enough, and the QC's and CPS are not brave enough to challenge an offence like this as murder, as most of Tort will have to be rewritten. Just going to remind people what happened that night, and i cannot see how justice has been served. Just some of the statements from the case: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1776325/Drink-drive-goal-keeper-Luke-McCormicks-seven-year-jail-term-for-killing-two-brothers-in-motorway-crash-criticised.html Luke McCormick got seven years four months — little more than half the maximum 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving. But the road safety charity Brake said: “It begs the question of what you actually have to do to get the maximum. “For somebody to drink more than twice the legal amount and then go out and kill two children and STILL only get half the maximum sentence is pitiful.” McCormick caused the horrific crash as he raced home to confront his fiancée Naomi Richardson over rumours she was cheating — posted on social networking website Facebook. The 25-year-old keeper sank champagne and wine at a marathon wedding reception before driving “like an idiot” along the M6. He reached speeds of more than 100mph in his black Range Rover. He was found to have 74 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35. But though he admitted causing the boys’ deaths yesterday, he could have done so at a previous hearing a month ago — thus sparing the parents a second courtroom ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Interesting one this. Nothing can undo what has been done. Whatever McCormick feels, only he knows and he cannot pretend to understand the feelings of the family he ruined. Everyone in this world makes mistakes, the majority of those have little or no consequence to anyone but ourselves. I do not think you could call it murder but reckless, stupid and selfish yes and it was of his making. I have no idea what a suitable sentence is for such a thing. Some people feel no remorse for their actions, so to allow them to continue living the high life seems wrong on so many levels to me. Not saying he is like that. This isn't like a plumber or another career. Footballers live the life in the public eye and to my mind are expected to be role models. An unfair and heavy expectation perhaps. If a guy comes to fix your taps you have no idea of his past, nor does it matter to you as long as the job is done well. If someone is playing for your club you want to respect that player and you want them to represent your team in the best possible way. Is that a more parental thing? I would not want him at Derby. Much like I would never want that thug Lee Hughes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 I reframed from posting on this for a number of reasons, I am a father but I think he has the right to do whatever he likes when he comes out (legally of course) The problem here is drink driving nobody knows where they stand should be a zero tolerance, end of cannot drink and then drive! the biggest factor is people think oh well it wont happen to me!! I have myself drunk drove when I was younger as have many mates, and it comes down to not appreciating the consequences of my own actions or that they could have!! I am ashamed to admit it and lukily there were never any incidents, but I dont believe I am the only person looking at this thread to have done it! He has made a grave mistake and killed two boys, he will have to live with that forever, as a Parent I cannot even imagine on what the mother is feeling my thoughts really go out to her. BUT I think the fact that he is a footballer and that is most people on heres dream jobs, cloud there opinion on what has happened. He has massively foooked up but his actions going forward can try to prevent people from doing this again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 This isn't like a plumber or another career. Sorry, it is apparently, Bris Vegas typed so in an earlier post so it must be. Being a professional footballer is just a job. I look forward to finding professional footballer wanted in the sits vac, might give it a go. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Homicide, Murder and Manslaughter explained: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/ First few lines from each: Murder Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);any reasonable creature (human being);in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;under the Queen's Peace;with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Definition of Homicide Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide. Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways: 1) killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact. YR: I said maybe. He could have avoided the whole issue if he had used common sense EKR: Yes it was a deliberate act of drinking then driving, therefore he has proven on this occassion that he is indeed a danger to society, and for which the punishment did not fit the crime. Should he have got 25 to life, no, however he should not be out just yet. As for the other groups that is a whole different set of opinions! I feel that society is going backwards when you can get in a car and are drunk, and if you get caught there is no appreciable difference than if you kill someone and then get caught. It is not an eye for an eye, it is a fact that the legal system is not robust enough, and the QC's and CPS are not brave enough to challenge an offence like this as murder, as most of Tort will have to be rewritten. Just going to remind people what happened that night, and i cannot see how justice has been served. Just some of the statements from the case: [url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1776325/Drink-drive-goal-keeper-Luke-McCormicks-seven-year-jail-term-for-killing-two-brothers-in-motorway-crash-criticised.html]http://www.thesun.co...criticised.html Luke McCormick got seven years four months — little more than half the maximum 14 years for causing death by dangerous driving. But the road safety charity Brake said: “It begs the question of what you actually have to do to get the maximum. “For somebody to drink more than twice the legal amount and then go out and kill two children and STILL only get half the maximum sentence is pitiful.” McCormick caused the horrific crash as he raced home to confront his fiancée Naomi Richardson over rumours she was cheating — posted on social networking website Facebook. The 25-year-old keeper sank champagne and wine at a marathon wedding reception before driving “like an idiot” along the M6. He reached speeds of more than 100mph in his black Range Rover. He was found to have 74 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35. But though he admitted causing the boys’ deaths yesterday, he could have done so at a previous hearing a month ago — thus sparing the parents a second courtroom ordeal. is it common sense? how many people drink and drive? one would hope he would have thought about something like getting into a car drunk before he did it but millions do it every year. Once again you missed the INTENT bit out. For him to be charged with manslaughter he would need the intention of killing but got out of control, basically this doesn't apply in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 is it common sense? how many people drink and drive? one would hope he would have thought about something like getting into a car drunk before he did it but millions do it every year. Once again you missed the INTENT bit out. For him to be charged with manslaughter he would need the intention of killing but got out of control, basically this doesn't apply in this case. I assume by intent you are talking about mens rea. Just a snippet to prove intent: The levels of mens rea and the distinction between them vary between jurisdictions. Although common law originated from England, the common law of each jurisdiction with regard to culpability varies as precedents and statutes vary. England Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence (death).Oblique intention: the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#cite_note-3][4][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#cite_note-4][5][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#cite_note-5][6]Knowingly: the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occurRecklessness: the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#cite_note-6][7][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#cite_note-7][8][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#cite_note-8][9]Criminal negligence: the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person]reasonable person, in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences Like I said, the law needs to be challenged and tested, hence why the system is on place. As for common sense, I should hope so, as there has been enough campaigns about it, and a week before he committed this act, he was a poster boy for Plymouth Police heading up a careless driving campaign regarding the use of mobiles. So I am pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing, the risks associated with it, and just went ahead anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 None of those fit in, not direct intention not oblique intention as the act of driving while drunk wasn't going to be virtually certain even when hitting a car in today's society it is far from certain to kill. Knowingly again because it isn't reasonably certain, recklessness he couldn't think ahead because of the level of his drunkeness at the time. Criminal negligence again not in there, because a reasonable person in that condition being that angry may have drove home. I am pretty certain he didn't know exactly what he was doing as he was drunk and when inebriated people don't realize what they are doing. Your previous statement with him being a poster boy shows that in an abnormal state even good people make mistakes and that he wouldn't intentionally committ these actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Being drunk is not a defence, and reasonable person does fit, as it states in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences. Unfortunatly the law prosecution was under Road Traffic Law and not under Common Law, and in my view, that is the law that should have taken presidence in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Being drunk is not a defence, and reasonable person does fit, as it states in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences. Unfortunatly the law prosecution was under Road Traffic Law and not under Common Law, and in my view, that is the law that should have taken presidence in this case. In the same circumstances he wouldn't have done as when drunk people do struggle to forsee events it is when you are talking about charging him with manslaughter/murder. If he was sober then he wouldn't have done,but being drunk he might well of done the same. In my view it should have been death by dangerous driving two counts, then drunk driving, I'm not sure what the actual charge was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.