Four dead in Darnall crash 09/11/2018

[Cyclone 10]

2 hours ago, kidley said:

I wonder what this means?

 

C&P

Patrick Schaible was knocked over and killed instantly by an unlicensed, uninsured driver from Poland in his Renault Clio on October 7, 2017. The 21-year-old was walking home along the B6279 near Summerhouse, County Durham, when he was hit in the early hours of the morning.

 

 

You wonder what my comment means?  Or you wonder what the CPS advice means?

[choogling 14]

On ‎11‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 10:07 AM, dave_the_m said:

Or there could of course be a middle ground.

 

Also, remember, we are discussing here whether the passengers are jointly liable for the reckless actions of the driver. Whether the passengers knew about the highway code is neither here nor there.

 

It may well be the case that the passengers are all unpleasant scrotes who deserve to be locked up for various crimes they have committed in recent years - but who nevertheless don't deserve to prosecuted for the actions of the driver. Again, a jury, presented with the facts, will make this determination.

I would love to do jury service, especially on this trial, but never been ask.

[Jen17 10]

1 hour ago, choogling said:

I would love to do jury service, especially on this trial, but never been ask.

Me too.

[*_ash_* 88]

11 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Appears to be inappropriate guidance to my mind.

 

 

 

 

The argument is though, that despite not being licenced to drive legally in the UK, he didn't actually make any fault of driving which contributed to the death...

Of course, you will pull me up on this, but not specifically arguing with you (I agree with your first line, but would argue further), if that makes difference...

 

It's not the best analogy, but when  you consider gun laws in USA, would this stand up, and would people accept it? (I personally doubt it)
 

Quote

 

The argument is though, that despite not being licenced to drive legally in the UK, he didn't actually make any fault of driving which contributed to the death...

 

 

Quote

The argument is though, that despite not being licenced to own a gun in the USA, he didn't actually make any fault of shooting (or for more equality in the analogy) / he wan't intending to misuse it,  which contributed to the death...

 

cocked that up a bit, trying the new quoting.

 

In short, law is complicating, and quoting is too until I get the hang of it, and too late to change, as my tea is ready.

Edited November 26, 2018 by *_ash_*

[nikki-red 307]

Posts have been removed that could be seen to breach our Ts & Cs.

 

These were people from Sheffield, their families and friends could well be reading this. The area it happened in is irrelevant, it was simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time with tragic consequences.
Have some respect.

Edited November 26, 2018 by nikki-red

[woodview 10]

3 hours ago, choogling said:

I would love to do jury service, especially on this trial, but never been ask.

I think the fact you are saying that, would make you unsuitable. You are supposed to keep an open mind and base your verdict only on the evidence given in court.

[*_ash_* 88]

5 minutes ago, woodview said:

I think the fact you are saying that, would make you unsuitable. You are supposed to keep an open mind and base your verdict only on the evidence given in court.

Only if they said that in public at a random case (which this isn't, it's his/her personal view on this one).

 

I've always wondered how I can get out of jury service and had several thoughts (all dismissed as I could be done for contempt of court).

 

Saying this type of thing on an online forum though, could be handy, when trying to get out of it.... claiming that months / years ago, you admitted your judgement is clouded by emotion. 

 

I might try this now...

 

My judgement is clouded based on the nature of the case 261118

Edited November 26, 2018 by *_ash_*

[choogling 14]

18 hours ago, woodview said:

I think the fact you are saying that, would make you unsuitable. You are supposed to keep an open mind and base your verdict only on the evidence given in court.

I do have an open mind the evidence is very clear to see

 

[woodview 10]

1 minute ago, choogling said:

I do have an open mind the evidence is very clear to see

 

that you've seen in the news.

Point is, if you are on a jury you have to go in and base your verdict on the evidence that's presented in the court. If you specifically want to be on a jury to give the verdict you think is right now, before even going in, then it isn't a fair trial.

[choogling 14]

They would get a fair trial before being found guilty and a recommendation for the maximum penalty to be given its a pity hanging was abolished.

[woodview 10]

1 minute ago, choogling said:

They would get a fair trial before being found guilty and a recommendation for the maximum penalty to be given its a pity hanging was abolished.

If you know now they would be found guilty, then why bother with a trial at all.

The jury don't decide the sentence in any case.

Look, I'm all for coming down on thos who are guilty, and if these are found guilty in court, they decide the strongest possible sentence. What I'm saying is, someone saying 'I want to be on that jury' is the wrong person to be on it.

[choogling 14]

3 minutes ago, woodview said:

If you know now they would be found guilty, then why bother with a trial at all.

The jury don't decide the sentence in any case.

Look, I'm all for coming down on thos who are guilty, and if these are found guilty in court, they decide the strongest possible sentence. What I'm saying is, someone saying 'I want to be on that jury' is the wrong person to be on it.

Perhaps big brother has been watching me all these years and blocked me from jury service, shame.