"W K" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:20040212093944.24788.00001794@mb-
> m16.aol.com...
>
> > You are completely correct that it's a disgrace the boy was killed.
>
> Said by three people - but why?
>
> Its an accident with fairly simple causes, in many ways a rather clear cut case. Two boys run
> across a road, a third follows them. The first two were behaving in an extremely risky way - and
> gave their
side
> of the story.
>
> It was the kind of accident that will happen for as long as we have cars
or
> children.
So you really think it is unavoidable?
Now I've looked it up, here's the link:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2495144
Exerpt: "CJ was crossing the road with his 12-year-old brother Sam and another friend when the
collision took place as Kadri overtook another vehicle.
Reading a statement outside court, Paul Hayward, of the Crown Prosecution Service, said: "Although
the road accident involving Mr Kadri resulted in the tragic death of Callum, the evidence shows that
his death was not caused by either dangerous or careless driving.
"There was insufficient evidence to give a precise indication of the speed of Mr Kadri's vehicle,
but eyewitnesses stated that he appeared to be travelling at a speed slightly in excess of the
50mph limit.
"Mr Kadri's defence was that he was not aware of this at the time.
"For the CPS to advise that he be charged with dangerous driving, there would have to be evidence
which shows that his driving fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver
and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."
And the MIRROR:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=13920524_method=full_s iteid=50143_headline=-NO-JUSTICE-
name_page.html
"Kadri admitted he was speeding when he overtook a car which had slowed down after seeing Callum
crossing a road with his brother Sam, 12, and a friend on New Year's Day. "
Comment: it says there was not enough *evidence* to convict of a more serious offence. Yet he may
well have been speeding. Arguably he should have seen pedestrians in the distance. The other car was
slowing and he overtook - dangerous manouevre? To me this shows the burden of proof is incorrect in
this country regarding motoring offences. It seems that to be convicted of manslaughter in the UK
you would have to drive on the pavement, hit several pedestrians, then reverse back over them... and
even then you'd probably be acquitted as the CPS would go for dangerous driving....
Honestly, I am not a racist, but the tabloids highlighting this sort of thing is good for road
safety in the long run I think. Maybe the law can get changed to make people in charge of dangerous
machinery act responsibly.
J