Bris Vegas Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Having a few drinks knowing you have to drive back down the motorway is stupid though. The slight mistake on a motorway can cause a pile up. I agree with what you're saying with regards to the speed limit, but to drink with the knowledge you hav e to drive on the motorway is pure ignorance and stupidity. I agree with everything you say and in no way am I defending his actions.. The guy has destroyed a family, through his own stupidity.. My posts were merely trying to speculate as to why he was given the 7 years and not the normal 15+ you would get for murder.. As IMO he didn't murder those children.. If it's an accident it can't be called as murder.. The same way as if a doctor makes a stupid mistake whilst working that kills a patient.. Negligence, not murder.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 In the States, first degree manslaughter carries not less than 5 years and no more than 25 years and a minimum of 85% of that term must be served. So in the States, he would have recieved a minimum 12 years adding to the fact he caused a high degree of bodily harm to another person and drove while under the influence. 85% would mean he would serve at least 10 years. Luke McCormick might be the issue but the bigger picture is the utterly obscene leniancy in our penal system. This guy should not be allowed to resume his playing career. Professional footballers are in a privelaged position and one in which they are very much in the public eye. You commit an offence of this nature and you lose that privelage. This whole case leaves me with a very sour taste in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 We should all weep for a legal system that values the lives of children at 2 years apiece. Given the relatively small chance of actually getting caught, where exactly is the deterrent against people committing these offences? long sentences as a detterent very rarely work. People commit these actions regardless of sentence because they don't think about the sentence when and before they commit the action. Though there is a debate to if in this instance longer sentencing was required. However the judge may take into account the character of the person etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I seriously cant bring myself to comment on this sad, sad case..I feel physically sick for all concerned, everyone's a loser here, everyone. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':(' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake n Bake Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 In the States, first degree manslaughter carries not less than 5 years and no more than 25 years and a minimum of 85% of that term must be served. So in the States, he would have recieved a minimum 12 years adding to the fact he caused a high degree of bodily harm to another person and drove while under the influence. 85% would mean he would serve at least 10 years. Luke McCormick might be the issue but the bigger picture is the utterly obscene leniancy in our penal system. This guy should not be allowed to resume his playing career. Professional footballers are in a privelaged position and one in which they are very much in the public eye. You commit an offence of this nature and you lose that privelage. This whole case leaves me with a very sour taste in my mouth. I agree, but if the club are willing to give him a deal who can stop that? I wonder how Swindon fans have reacted. The problem is this is a world where usually you don't benefit from being a good citezen. Those who exploit are the ones who become rich in some cases. In the rap industry going to prison makes you more popular with fans it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 In the States, first degree manslaughter carries not less than 5 years and no more than 25 years and a minimum of 85% of that term must be served. So in the States, he would have recieved a minimum 12 years adding to the fact he caused a high degree of bodily harm to another person and drove while under the influence. 85% would mean he would serve at least 10 years. Luke McCormick might be the issue but the bigger picture is the utterly obscene leniancy in our penal system. This guy should not be allowed to resume his playing career. Professional footballers are in a privelaged position and one in which they are very much in the public eye. You commit an offence of this nature and you lose that privelage. This whole case leaves me with a very sour taste in my mouth. That's never gunna be allowed to happen, it would open a massive can of worms. You're basically saying that anyone ever convicted of manslaughter, murder etc is never allowed to have a significant amount of money ever again. What if he won the lottery? Or won a massive bet? Or got a massive inheritance payout? He's not allowed to claim the money by your reckoning. What if he cant get another job? He's suppose to live a life claiming benefits? Is it ok for a paedophile or a rapist, but not someone who's took another persons life? You cant have a justice system where people are punished after they've done there time for particular crimes, give them longer sentences by all means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 how is it premeditated? the act of driving was yes, but not the act of ending someones life. It was negligent and a massive mistake but to categorize it as murder is simply ludicrous. Did he have a drink? Yes, no one forced him to drink. Did he get in his car and drive it? Yes, his choice. Did he have a reason? Decided to drive home, could have sleep in the car until sober. Was it premeditated? Yes it was Premedidtaion is characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning, I would say that he fulfilled all of those, resulting in his deliberate actions killing 2 childen and maiming the father. Should he be allowed to have a job/career after his sentance? Yes I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders. Should he be released? No, not for a very long time. Our justice system is out of date, other countries see this crime as murder, we see it as an 'accident'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 i will say one thing.. he should never be allowed behind a wheel again..not that much of a hardship, to a person who has the capacity to earn millions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramexpat Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 I wonder how Swindon fans have reacted. They are not happy about it [url=http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,48201.0.html]http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,48201.0.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McRamFan Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 They are not happy about it [url=http://thetownend.com/index.php/topic,48201.0.html]http://thetownend.co...ic,48201.0.html Wow, 36 pages in 3 days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 An interesting conundrum that this has got me thinking about: would you rather be came out of jail and became a saint, donating all his money to charity etc. or would you rather he come out and act like a total *****? Sounds like a no brainer, but think about it. If he started a charity for families destroyed by drink driving, and publicly donated all his money, it doesn't help the family he destroyed one little bit. The only thing, I imagine, that could make them feel better, is if they can continue hating this guy for what he's done. Imagine if he became a hero for hundreds of other families that he gives money to. That's just a kick in the face for the family of the boys he killed. Whereas if he acts like a total *****, then we can all carry on with our lives, safe in the knowledge that little boys are only killed by evil ********. We can all hate him and throw eggs at him. If he was to create that persona, take it on the chin, and then privately donate all his money to children's charities, that would be a far more noble act, in a way. Sort of like Bruce Wayne acting like a rich dick, and being batman behind closed doors. Course there's the third choice that he can just keep quiet and keep his head down, but I'm not presenting that as option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearl Ram Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I can't believe the sheer audacity of the man. At what point did he think public opinion would not be against him being back in the spotlight ? He will be reviled wherever he plays surely. Can you imagine the senario of him saving a penalty at Wembley in a play off final that get's his team promoted and him being hailed as some kind of hero ? And what about future team mates that might feel strongly about having him in their squad ? Shouldn't their opinions be taken into account ? If he had any sense of decency he'd think about a career away from football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i84est Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Worst or best thing bout this is people know where this guys gonna be on saturdays and Tuesday's wouldn't feel safe if I was in his boots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Did he have a drink? Yes, no one forced him to drink. Did he get in his car and drive it? Yes, his choice. Did he have a reason? Decided to drive home, could have sleep in the car until sober. Was it premeditated? Yes it was Premedidtaion is characterized by deliberate purpose, previous consideration, and some degree of planning, I would say that he fulfilled all of those, resulting in his deliberate actions killing 2 childen and maiming the father. Should he be allowed to have a job/career after his sentance? Yes I believe in the rehabilitation of offenders. Should he be released? No, not for a very long time. Our justice system is out of date, other countries see this crime as murder, we see it as an 'accident'. one problem with your list, all that includes is the premeditation to drink drive. Did he premeditate to kill 2 children and injure a father no he did not and to say otherwise is false. It is an accident in the sense he didn't mean to kill someone. Accidents don't mean no-one is at fault, it just means that someone didn't mean to do something which they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake n Bake Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 An interesting conundrum that this has got me thinking about: would you rather be came out of jail and became a saint, donating all his money to charity etc. or would you rather he come out and act like a total *****? Sounds like a no brainer, but think about it. If he started a charity for families destroyed by drink driving, and publicly donated all his money, it doesn't help the family he destroyed one little bit. The only thing, I imagine, that could make them feel better, is if they can continue hating this guy for what he's done. Imagine if he became a hero for hundreds of other families that he gives money to. That's just a kick in the face for the family of the boys he killed. Whereas if he acts like a total *****, then we can all carry on with our lives, safe in the knowledge that little boys are only killed by evil ********. We can all hate him and throw eggs at him. If he was to create that persona, take it on the chin, and then privately donate all his money to children's charities, that would be a far more noble act, in a way. Sort of like Bruce Wayne acting like a rich dick, and being batman behind closed doors. Course there's the third choice that he can just keep quiet and keep his head down, but I'm not presenting that as option. I think the family of those two boys would prefer him to be a saint and donate it all to charity. At least then some good has come from the tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrivateDerby Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 one problem with your list, all that includes is the premeditation to drink drive. Did he premeditate to kill 2 children and injure a father no he did not and to say otherwise is false. It is an accident in the sense he didn't mean to kill someone. Accidents don't mean no-one is at fault, it just means that someone didn't mean to do something which they did. Thing is YR, it's common sense drink driving kills, everyone knows it. The Police now call anything to do with vehicles a collision instead of an accident, because an accident indicates that nobody was at fault. Which in this case causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs would be the offender - McCormick. If you have time, have a quick read of this and see if his sentence or time served is fair based on what happened. [url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_careless_driving_under_the_influence/]http://www.cps.gov.u..._the_influence/ By the way is the website on your profile yours? It's a good read mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I agree with everything you say and in no way am I defending his actions.. The guy has destroyed a family, through his own stupidity.. My posts were merely trying to speculate as to why he was given the 7 years and not the normal 15+ you would get for murder.. As IMO he didn't murder those children.. If it's an accident it can't be called as murder.. The same way as if a doctor makes a stupid mistake whilst working that kills a patient.. Negligence, not murder.. A doctor trying to save someone's life compared to someone who knew he was putting someone at risk as soon as he got into the car. The two don't compare, at the end of the day two people lost their life's as the result of his actions, no he didn't go out to intentionally to cause this, however sentences should provide more of a deterrent to people to reduce the chances of this happening again. His sentence pales into insignificance to the impact he has had on other people, he has a chance to build the pieces of his life back together, his actions mean others haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Alcohol itself is poison.. I don't touch the stuff.. It changes people, their actions and how they control themselves.. I don't know but one could suggest that if McCormick hadn't drunk alcohol the chances of him crashing would be significantly decreased.. Ban alcohol altogether.. It's poison. As for the original question, should he be allowed to play football again? Football is a job, one that he can do.. Is that any different to a plumber not being allowed to return to be a plumber afterwards? Football is a job, nothing more, why people think it's anything more I don't know.. And about him being a hero?.. Simple, don't support him.. Fans aren't obliged to go to games and support the players, (if you don't like the product don't buy it) he's simply a part of a business (football) that he's trying to make more money.. Why shouldn't this be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 As I said, I'm not intelligent enough to debate the morales of either his sentence or what he is or isn't allowed to do after. It would be highly Hippocrictal of me to do so too, what I can say IMO nothing justifies his past actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Thing is YR, it's common sense drink driving kills, everyone knows it. The Police now call anything to do with vehicles a collision instead of an accident, because an accident indicates that nobody was at fault. Which in this case causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs would be the offender - McCormick. If you have time, have a quick read of this and see if his sentence or time served is fair based on what happened. [url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_careless_driving_under_the_influence/]http://www.cps.gov.u..._the_influence/ By the way is the website on your profile yours? It's a good read mate. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.