kwik fit fitter gets 6 1/2 years.
03-27-2012, 07:08 AM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Location Location
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the family that lost Ryan. They live in the road where I grew up. They would no doubt be rolling in the aisles after reading some of the comments on here. Poor show all round from folk who should know better and they need to grow up.
For now, the lives of the family have been completely ruined and the event has shaken the whole community. In time they may be able to come to terms with the fact that it was a tragic accident (despite the criminal activities) but this may take a lifetime to achieve.
The stretch of road is quite a challenge to cross and is not recommended but, frankly, who cares?
For now, the lives of the family have been completely ruined and the event has shaken the whole community. In time they may be able to come to terms with the fact that it was a tragic accident (despite the criminal activities) but this may take a lifetime to achieve.
The stretch of road is quite a challenge to cross and is not recommended but, frankly, who cares?
03-27-2012, 03:09 PM
#52
Registered User
(don't shoot the messenger)
Plenty of rumour mills on here. I don't actually have any points on my license
Originally Posted by vividracing.com' timestamp='1332789756' post='21545294
I've got to side with Nexus here. I feel like those of you that are disagreeing aren't understanding his perspective completely. It seems to me that Nexus is saying that these 2 men were basically demonized and "lynched" because of circumstances that are irrelevant to the case. It doesn't matter whether it was a Porsche or a Kia. It doesn't matter that the car didn't belong to them. What matters is that they struck and killed a young boy. If the charges did not include vehicle theft, then the make/model of the vehicle, as well as it's legal owner, is irrelevant to this case. Pull the data from the ECU, read speed in the last 10 seconds prior to impact, and judge them based on those facts only. Skid marks at the scene would be another factor.
They killed a child while they were committing a criminal act, the driver got 61/2 years. How is that lynching them? How is that demonising them? The criminal act was central to this.As for the make and ownership of the car, they are matters of fact. If it had been a Kia owned by a vicar it would have made no difference to the case neither would the speed of the car.
Are you seriously suggesting that he should have got less shower time?
And like you said, the crime would be no less heinous.
Still, it begs the question why a little boy would cross the road in such a dangerous spot.
Equally as much as the two people in a stolen car shouldn't have been, the child shouldn't have been crossing such a dangerous road.
'If the child hadn't crossed the road, he would not have been hit.' That is about as factual as it gets. Of equal weight to the statement 'If the men hadn't have stolen the car, the child wouldn't have been hit.'.
I am not trying to prove the innocence of the Driver, more to objectify the sensationalism and show how pi55 poor the Justice system is.
03-28-2012, 12:05 AM
#53
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: There's no i in toast!
Posts: 9,022
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I'm not defending what this twat did, as in a moment of stupidity he has ruined this families lives, and he'll now have to live with the guilt of what he's done.
My beef is with the media, and the way they colour their stories. Let's not let the facts get in the way of selling a few more papers The roads are a dangerous place, so why is an 8 year old crossing a busy 60mph road without an adult. Why don't the media ask that question? If it's so dangerous, and a lot of people cross there why is there not a crossing for people to make use of? Or better yet why did they not cross closer to the roundabout where there is an traffic island.
Instead of asking difficult questions which no doubt will upset the more delicate people out there, they opt for the easy target which is the young guy driving the car.
My beef is with the media, and the way they colour their stories. Let's not let the facts get in the way of selling a few more papers
The roads are a dangerous place, so why is an 8 year old crossing a busy 60mph road without an adult. Why don't the media ask that question? If it's so dangerous, and a lot of people cross there why is there not a crossing for people to make use of? Or better yet why did they not cross closer to the roundabout where there is an traffic island.Instead of asking difficult questions which no doubt will upset the more delicate people out there, they opt for the easy target which is the young guy driving the car.
03-28-2012, 03:38 AM
#54
Registered User
The attitude of everyone involved should be 'Let's find out exactly what went wrong and try to prevent it happening again.'
Unfortunately, the attitude of 'Let's get him' is often the way.
The guy going to Jail is a person too. Ok, he worked for Kwik-fit, but he went about his business and paid his taxes.
It wasn't as if he went out to kill someone, yet some of the comments on here would suggest he did!
There is no doubt what he did was stupidity of the highest order and a portion of the blame for the child's death is his.
Not only does he have to live with that, his life is now pretty much ruined. I'd say that was punishment enough.
03-28-2012, 04:17 AM
#55
Is it me? Honestly is it?
A man steals a car,which is a crime and kills a child in the course of committing the crime and some are trying to shift some of the blame on to the victim.
The cherry on the cake is this:
The attitude of everyone involved should be 'Let's find out exactly what went wrong and try to prevent it happening again.'
Unfortunately, the attitude of 'Let's get him' is often the way.
The guy going to Jail is a person too. Ok, he worked for Kwik-fit, but he went about his business and paid his taxes.
It wasn't as if he went out to kill someone, yet some of the comments on here would suggest he did!
There is no doubt what he did was stupidity of the highest order and a portion of the blame for the child's death is his
Not only does he have to live with that, his life is now pretty much ruined. I'd say that was punishment enough.
Am I going mad? Are we now blaming victims for their own deaths on the grounds that if they were not there they would not have died?
Methinks that our resident expert on everything needs to have a talk with himself.
A man steals a car,which is a crime and kills a child in the course of committing the crime and some are trying to shift some of the blame on to the victim.
The cherry on the cake is this:
The attitude of everyone involved should be 'Let's find out exactly what went wrong and try to prevent it happening again.'
Unfortunately, the attitude of 'Let's get him' is often the way.
The guy going to Jail is a person too. Ok, he worked for Kwik-fit, but he went about his business and paid his taxes.
It wasn't as if he went out to kill someone, yet some of the comments on here would suggest he did!
There is no doubt what he did was stupidity of the highest order and a portion of the blame for the child's death is his
Not only does he have to live with that, his life is now pretty much ruined. I'd say that was punishment enough.
Am I going mad? Are we now blaming victims for their own deaths on the grounds that if they were not there they would not have died?
Methinks that our resident expert on everything needs to have a talk with himself.
03-28-2012, 07:42 AM
#58
Registered User
On that basis it is entirely fair to say that if the Victim had weighed up the dangers of crossing the road correctly, it wouldn't have happened.
Until you remove emotions from the equation, it is a natural response for them to affect better judgement - they certainly have done with me in the past.
The sensationalism plays on stereotypes and emotions to heighten the article en-catchment.
A Child is killed in Road Traffic Collision
The collision occurred on Road Bxxxx which was a national speed limit road.
The Conditions were dry and clear. There were no uncommon road markings/hazards noted. (it's possible the road was a clearway)
The car hit the child, who was crossing the road, at speed y (speed y is either under/over speed limit) according to the on-board vehicle data logger
No expert witnesses were present at the time of the collision
Post mortem analysis on the corpse, damage to the vehicle, and roadside investigation has shown that the collision occurred between a and b mph. It also showed that the vehicle did/did not skid and remained on the road.
Kwik-Fit Fitter steals high powered Porsche Sportscar and rams into little Johnny at speeds upto 80mph
32 year old Joe, a Manager at Kwik-fit, and his colleague decided to steal a customer's Porsche 911 Sports car.
The Porsche 911 is a high end German sports car capable of speeds of over 200mph.
Johnny, aged 8, was on his way home from school after playing football with his friends.
Eyewitnesses noticed the sportscar wheel spinning and the occupants laughing whilst bouncing up and down on the seats.
Johnny's parents are said to be devastated at the unlawful loss of their child, who they dearly loved.
They have vowed not to rest until Joe is bought to justice.
I'm not an expert, just willing to ask questions
