 |
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
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 privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
