Safe Speed Forums

A 10 year-old arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.

http://news.aol.co.uk/boy-10-held-over- ... 6155498318

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Whilst not condoning the actions of the young thugs I do feel some disquiet about this. If a moving vehicle collides with a stationary vehicle there are few circumstances in which that is not the fault of the driver of the moving vehicle and the reason that the other vehicle was stationary is not relevant. How far are we prepared to extend the chain of circumstances before attributing blame? To the driver of the stopped vehicle (as discussed in another thread), to the person who caused the driver to stop (as in this case), to the person who provided the means of stopping the vehicle, to the company who manufactured it?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Spot on, if the vehicle that collided with the stop truck was interfered with then fair enough, but if it just drove into it the driver should be up the dangerous driving by the looks of it.

Any other outcome and we're looking at the people who first crashed to be prosecuted for all the rear enders in a motorway pile up for instance.

Oh, and the kids should be punished for throwing stones full stop.

Johnny sees thread title.

Johnny sees that last contributor is weepej.

Johnny hazards a guess that weepej is going to blame a driver.

Johnny is right.

Perhaps Johnny would be better off considering the facts rather making automatically making his opinion the daimetric opinion of Weepej's

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Well you that's how it normally and up being even after careful consideration

Anyway. Yes I see the point: that the driver 'wasn't allowing himself to stop in the distance he knows to be clear'.

However, there are two confounding factors:

1) "The recovery driver was following an ambulance carrying Mr Baker's partner, Sheila Bright, 42, and her pregnant daughter Paige, 17, to hospital from the crash." (link)
(although this probably doesn't allow for any mitigating circumstance)

2) Were the stone throwing youths still present and causing a distraction? This is very possible given the described timeframes.

Very little is said about the crash of the recovery truck driver - although publishing of the facts could well detract from the sensational headline of "rock throwers cause crash".

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

A quick analysis:

1. The kid throws the rock at the lorry. If the lorry driver had lost control and someone had been killed as a direct result then the child should be charged with manslaughter. The lorry driver could not reasonably be expected to foresee this event.

2. This did not happen. The lorry driver stopped but was subsequently hit by another vehicle. The child should be charged with a lesser offence as what he did was dangerous but there is a disconnection between his actions and the outcome. The driver of the breakdown truck is culpable.

People should be responsible for the reasonably forseeable consequences of their actions and not strictly liable for all possible outcomes. If a kid kicks a football at someone's window, the housholder comes out to remonstrate with them but has a heart attack and dies from the stress, do you think the kid is a murderer?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Sorry DCB, but what's my opinion?

No. However, people have been killed in exactly this manner, and IMO the means rea to cause harm is obviously there, so attempted murderer could be arguable!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You see, if I suggest that I get pilloried.

For the murder charge there would have to be the means rea to cause death not harm to property. For a manslaughter charge there has to be action where a reasonable person could anticipate the action possibly causing a death. In the case in question a reasonable person would conclude that throwing rocks at a vehicle would likely cause death. I wonder if they would have been arrested if they had been playing football and had kicked the ball into the road?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Perhaps this is more like voluntary manslaughter, but the anticipated likelihood of death is too significant.
The thrower directly created a deadly situation, which then separately created a risky situation (the subsequent fatality).

I cannot prove, or disprove, 'attempted murder' in this case - I don't know that he was or wasn't trying to kill drivers (to seriously harm them: more than likely); perhaps no one but the perpetrator will ever know that truth.

An accidentally stray bounce/kick of a football doesn't automatically have the same level of intent, of course.
Even if done on purpose, it is reasonable to deduce that the ball won't go through the windscreen, but the sudden sharp driver distraction could still create a deadly situation.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

You also get pilloried for very selective quoting.

No, you get pilloried for not forming a balanced opinion of a situation. By the law of averages, your blaming of drivers on every occasion will result in you being in agreement with me and others in some instances. Like a stopped clock you will, at some time, give a "correct" view.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Wow.

Do I do this?

You might perceive this to be the case as I wouldn't argue with something that I agree with on here, or make a post saying a driver has been cleared of wrong doing and I agree with that.

Isn't that what your 'strict liability' is all about?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

No, strict liability puts the onus on the driver/rider to prove there was no way the collision with the pedestrian/cycle could not have been avoided (and similary the cyclists with pedestrians).

It's not about automatic guilt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Bq1vxCUvo

That's not strict liability.
Strict liablity: 'the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ... regardless of culpability ... neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defenses.' [wiki]


For what you describe, this will automatically be the case for anyone who hasn't got a full CCTV system on their vehicle.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Weepej: would you support a similar strict liability arrangement between cyclists and pedestrians, i.e. cyclists assumed to be at fault in any collision?