A moral question

[BigJim]

Tom was deffinitly under the influence of alcohal(inkahol?) at the time. We'll say, for arguements sake, 6 beers in 2 hours.

Tom would have in all likelyness not have hit the child if he was drinking. He didnt do a huge swerve unto somebodies property, but the kid was driving his bike on the road and in full view. Tom made a misjudgment because he was drunk.

"Affluence of inkahol" is a spoonerism Cosmic. Soemthing someone would likely do if they'd had a few too many.

Funny.


Joke.

Ha ha.


Fuck it.


Anyway, given those circumstances I would charge him with causing a death through careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol (assuming I was doing it by UK laws). And no, his career would not count as a mitigating circumstance in this case. He knew the risks, he was a highly trained and switched on individual and he did it anyway.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

"Affluence of inkahol" is a spoonerism Cosmic. Soemthing someone would likely do if they'd had a few too many.

Funny.


Joke.

Ha ha.


Fuck it.

Ah, ok,sorry, didn't get it at the time. Thought it was either a nasty typo(which god knows i've done plenty of those) or britsh slang perhaps.

 

[jugner]

3/ You ignored my comment on it being attempted or sucessful.

Look, I'm not talking by the law, just how it should be. If a loved one has ever been killed by a drunk driver, you'd understand.

 

[BigJim]

Look, I'm not talking by the law, just how it should be. If a loved one has ever been killed by a drunk driver, you'd understand.

I understand better than you might think.

But yeah, I get where you're coming from now. I certainly agree killer dunk drivers should receive heavier sentences than they do.

 

[Tick_det]

Guilty m'lurd

I'd have him hanged if it were possible. Sadly here in the UK such scum would propably get a few months in jail and thats it. Occupation and age should be irrelevent.

Hand's up if you're ticklish ladies!