FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Who is to blame?

Jump to newest
 

By *ig bad OP   Man
over a year ago

Up North :-)

A d*unk driver hits a Jehovah's Witness and injured her. She had a 20% chance to live without a blood transfusion, 80%+ with a blood transfusion. She refused it, and died. How liable is the d*unk driver for her death?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *istress-MazikeenWoman
over a year ago

bolton

He cant be as it was her choice.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He is totally responsible as he shouldn't have been driving and if he hadn't been she wouldn't have been hit by his car and wouldn't have needed a blood transfusion at all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

tricky...but had he not of been d*unk...would he of hit her??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig bad OP   Man
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"He cant be as it was her choice."

But if he hadn't hit her she would be still alive!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago

Bridgend


"A d*unk driver hits a Jehovah's Witness and injured her. She had a 20% chance to live without a blood transfusion, 80%+ with a blood transfusion. She refused it, and died. How liable is the d*unk driver for her death?"

Not enough information to make an informed decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *im53Man
over a year ago

Boldon

his fault no question about it

if he was not d*unk there would be no accidend

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As far as I'm aware, in this country, drink driving (at least to the point of d*unk) is illegal, where as religious beliefs are not.

So, the d*unk driver is to blame.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

If the only reason she required a transfusion was because of the accident … then I would believe the driver is responsible for her death.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig bad OP   Man
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"A d*unk driver hits a Jehovah's Witness and injured her. She had a 20% chance to live without a blood transfusion, 80%+ with a blood transfusion. She refused it, and died. How liable is the d*unk driver for her death?

Not enough information to make an informed decision. "

Well Witnesses do not believe in transfusions on religious grounds. It is only a hypothetical situation though so its not possible to pad it out with any more.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"his fault no question about it

if he was not d*unk there would be no accidend "

I agree: but for his initial action ie driving under the influence, the woman wouldn't have been placed in that position.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig bad OP   Man
over a year ago

Up North :-)

The driver is to blame undoubtedly for the accident but is he for manslaughter as if she had been given a transfusion she may have lived. Does her refusing make it less than manslaughter ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The driver is to blame undoubtedly for the accident but is he for manslaughter as if she had been given a transfusion she may have lived. Does her refusing make it less than manslaughter ?"

It's a manslaughter charge either way isn't it? It can't be murder as he never set out that day with the explicit intention of killing a particular person.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ig bad OP   Man
over a year ago

Up North :-)


"The driver is to blame undoubtedly for the accident but is he for manslaughter as if she had been given a transfusion she may have lived. Does her refusing make it less than manslaughter ?

It's a manslaughter charge either way isn't it? It can't be murder as he never set out that day with the explicit intention of killing a particular person."

I know there is a 12 month thing when someone dies within a year f an accident it can be attributed to the accident. Its the fact treatment is refused that had me wondering. The guy though should be slated for DD as its never acceptable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/03/10 00:07:16]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *zMaleMan
over a year ago

penzance

I believe he would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving, which again I believe now carries a life sentence.

Having said that I might be wrong and will stand corrected

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Nearly didn’t answer this post, but I think it may be get the tin hats out time! LoL

I find myself wishing we still had the old definition of murder on the statute books.

Before it was changed the definition of murder was, to deliberately take a life of a person who was protected by the queen’s peace or to kill a person while committing another crime, provided that they died as a result of the injuries they received within ONE YEAR & ONE DAY. Anyone who caused a death that took longer than that to occur was charged with manslaughter.

The definition was changed because medical advances meant that people could be kept alive for longer than the year and a day and the government of the day said that the definition was out of date. Now we have a situation where a gang of murderous yobs can kick someone to death or a woman can starve her child to death and so long as they say I didn’t mean to kill them they get away with it!

A car is a lethal weapon in the wrong hands, and when a d*unk gets behind a wheel and drives if they injure anyone they should be charged with mellitus wounding and if they kill the charge should be murder.

PS I believe th max for causing death by DD is 7 years(and 6 years is the normal time spent behind bars for killing,12 years for murder[HO figures])

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

sorry just checked causing death by DD carries a max of 14 yrs (out in 7 with your 50% remition!)!

so if you want to....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The driver is to blame undoubtedly for the accident but is he for manslaughter as if she had been given a transfusion she may have lived. Does her refusing make it less than manslaughter ?

It's a manslaughter charge either way isn't it? It can't be murder as he never set out that day with the explicit intention of killing a particular person.

I know there is a 12 month thing when someone dies within a year f an accident it can be attributed to the accident. Its the fact treatment is refused that had me wondering. The guy though should be slated for DD as its never acceptable."

It's an interesting dilemma for sure. The d*unk driver could argue that he didn't know she was a JW and would refuse the treatment which would have otherwise saved her but then the prosecution could counter-argue that if he'd hit a man with, say, brittle bones and smashed every bone in his body which led to his death, he couldn't use the 'I didn't know' excuse as a defence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adja_lazloCouple
over a year ago

Solihull

i dont think d*unk driving should be manslaughter, the drink driver knows the law, knows the risk, therefore its premeditated

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He cant be as it was her choice."

it wasnt her choice to get hit by a d*unk driver tho was it?

id say it was 100% the drivers fault, he made the choice to get in the car d*unk and he hit someone, simple as, if he hadnt have been driving d*unk she wouldnt have been put in the possition where she had to turn down the trasfusion

he was driving d*unk and hit someone, how can it not be his fault?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i dont think d*unk driving should be manslaughter, the drink driver knows the law, knows the risk, therefore its premeditated"

Premiditation by it's definition infers that intent to kill or maim was present and clearly it wasn't, therefore it cannot be murder.

These arguments about a car being used as a murder weapon by d*unk drivers is just semantics. It reinforces the rationale behind those seeking harsher sentences for d*unk drivers, bot nobody can say with a clear conscience that a d*unk driver decieds to use his car to kill someone while he's intoxicated. If anything, I'd say the absolute reverse is more accurate: Who is capable of making a coherrent decision while pissed as a fart?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top